Secular argument against gay marriage

[josh987654321]

Thank you for your reply Inocente.

I tried to explain that it can’t happen in the legislative process without explicit support from elected politicians. Do you not understand?

Yes, I do understand, thats why in my previous post I said** “True.” **I was asking you that if you were an elected politician on what grounds would you refuse incestuous and polygamous marriage?

I’ve given my reasons, and had to repeat them several times for you.

You stated that sex is irrelevant to marriage and in your answers you mentioned sex. So no you haven’t answered this question without it being in refference to sex.

You also answered it in refference to “abuse.” Like I said before it is not the case for all incestuous or polygamous relationships, just like promiscuity is not the case for all homosexual relationships.

Each day it’s as if we never had a conversation the previous day. It’s surreal, it’s like we’ve never met before. Sorry but I can’t keep on repeating the same things over and over for you.

I feel similar, can you please read my questions and try to answer them, if you think you are repeating yourself than just link the post in which you think you have already replied and I will explain to you how the question fundamentally differs.

As I’ve already had to repeat, my view is standard Christianity, much the same as the Church in this respect, and I’ve given you links. Sorry but I can’t keep on repeating the same things over and over for you.

Your view is not standard Christianity, infact from what what you have denied it is quite far from it!

Could you please find me a Church that denies God as our creator?

The links you provided me with all said that God was our creator, I even bolded and large printed it!

Your sources not only said that God was our creator, but that he is also our designer. That he designed us to naturally evolve into humankind (male and female). That is your Theistic Evolution theory!

We’ve been around this several times, why do you keep repeating the same questions and ignoring my answers?

:banghead: We have not been over this, I pointed out to you that your sources backed my view of creationsim, that humankind (male and female) were created by God.

Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.

Now the Gospel of Mathew clearly says this -

Mathew 19:4
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,

Do you reject that statement Christ made in the Gospel of mathew that God created us male and female? and if so why? your theistic evolution and big bang theory does not counter creationsim! infact I also believe theistic evolution and big bang theory.

I also said that the chances of humankind (male and female) coming together by chance is 10^40000, it is timewise and mathematically impossible.

I didn’t mean you, I meant that ID is an invented hypothesis.

Okay.

¿Que? I gave the verses to show that traditionally Christianity is about Christ, not about design cults.

Are you kidding me? Christianity is about Christ, being the son of God.

Chirst is one with the father and the father is one with the son, if you have seen the son than you have also seen the father, if you have heard the son than you have heard the father.

Nicene Creed -
I believe in one lord Jesus Christ, the only Begotten son of God, born of the father before all ages, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the father, through him all things were made.

Apostles Creed -
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ his only son our lord.

You don’t seem to understand a word I’ve said.

I’ve posted surveys on this thread which indicate a majority of Christians in the US are in favor of gay marriage, just as a majority of Christians in Spain were in favor. Here’s one picked at random from your neck of the woods with the same results.

When the people sat on either side of you in your church probably agree with me, where do you get off calling me a liar and questioning the sincerity of my faith?

I didn’t call you a liar. But I am questioning the sincerity of your faith as I am questioning the sincerity of all of those Catholics who are a part of my faith also.

In my previous post I pointed out section 2357 in the Catechises of the Catholic Church, in which says about the sexual acts of homosexuality that “Under no circumstances are they to be approved.” So what does that tell you about these Catholics who are approving them?

I am questioning the sincerity of all of those in the Christian faith who support same sex marriage and have arrived at that conclusion through Christian teaching.

Discussion of evolution is banned, but let’s just say that while the laws of physics may be designed (they appear to be perfect), there are so many imperfections and mistakes in human anatomy that to me it’s an insult to Almighty God to claim that He could have produced such an incompetent design**.
josh987654321;10761984:

Im quite shocked that you would call Gods creation of us an incompetent design

I didn’t.

You were saying?

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

Again you are evading. For the third time:

1. When did you last hear someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be able to have lots of sex, how nice for them”?
2. Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is about sex?

I thought I made it clear. No. Marriage is not just about sex nor is it exclusive of it either.

The answer to your question 1. and 2. is No.

My question is playing on yours to show that sex is not exclusive of marriage: When did you last here someone say “Jim and Jane are getting married. they’ll be virgins for ever, how nice for them”? Can you give me just one example of any normal person in the real world thinking marriage is completely irrelevant to sexual intimacy, completely irrelevant to sex?

Already answered many times.

Not without the objection of sexual acts or abuse, because abuse is just as capable in any relationship, so you haven’t, with those considerations.

By that logic buying drugs should not be a criminal offense because it is of consent.

Buying drugs is not a criminal offense, only certain drugs are a criminal offense as they cause a great deal of harm, so you are correct that, that logic doesn’t hold true for everything.

By that logic eating chocolate together is immoral because it mutually appeases desire.

Before criticizing others you may like to spend a bit of time working out why you think things are moral and immoral.

Okay, it was my attempt at a secular argument, however it is primarily due to religious beliefs.

May I ask whether you think fornication is immoral according to you? I would like a definate answer please and if you think it is only in certain circumstances, could you please provide me with an example.

Agreed.

Okay, cool, Im glad we established that.

So if “Love of Eros” is not christian love, do you see the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral or immoral? and if so how did you conclude it?

You’ve been on about fornication for several days and now you say that’s nothing to do with the topic.

Please continue with it because it is quite relevant. I am explaining to you how fornication and the sexual acts of homosexuality are linked in reasoning.

Because people say “If the sexual acts of homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone else than it must be moral” and thus the same is said for fornication and if you think fornication is immoral than it doesn’t make sense that you would consider the sexual acts of homosexuality as moral.

So are you a young earth creationist, old earth creationist, gap creationist, day-age creationist, progressive creationist or intelligent design creationist?

Don’t know id have to research the differences between them, it doesn’t really matter how he did it because God still created us, he created us male and female, it’s an undisputable fact for any Christian.

Why do you think your brand of creationism alone speaks for Christ and that Christians like me who don’t subscribe to your brand of creationism are mistaken or liars?

Because to say that God is not our creator, is completely incompatable with Christian belief.

That’s what’s known as a subjective opinion.

It is the truth though. Once the sexual acts of homosexuality are embraced by society as moral, it will spread sexual immorality like wildfire.

As repeatedly said before, that is not a condition of heterosexual marriage so it is blatantly discriminatory to pretend it must be a condition of homosexual marriage.

It is absolutley a condition of heterosexual marriage, like I said playing on your question, do you know of anyone who would say “Jim and Jane are getting married, they’ll be virgins forever”?

Go back over my posts, I’ve said it often enough.

You mentioned abuse, so if a incestuous relationship is found non-abusibve, why can they not marry as sex is irrelevant?

The statistics here seem fairly representative, 30 to 60% are adulterers, so you tell me.

No, he didn’t, he said “go and sin no more.”

He tells all of us the same thing who act sexually immoral.

Yes, it’s correct that in that culture at that time the law was “if a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Lev 20:13)

So are you saying that (a) Jesus agreed with that law, or (b) Jesus disagreed with that law?

The same was said for adultery was it not? and what did Jesus say when the aduleter was brought in to be stoned? he said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” than he said “go and sin no more” to the adulterer when they had all left.

The exact same thing applies with the sexual acts of homosexuality.

I did, and somewhat ironically most of the hits on the first page said He would.

I take it you understand that your argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, that the truth doesn’t depend on how many google hits there are either way?

Could you please link the ones you find that claim “yes.”

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

You’ve got confused, you stated that point with “You think the [homosexual] morality is similar to the sexual act of heterosexuals?”

No, I think the morality of the sexual acts of homosexuality is similar to the morality of fornication and promiscuity. In the sense that if one is moral they are both considered moral.

You also keep on about fornication, but as repeatedly said many, many, many, many times it’s just a word.

Words have meaning.

Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other.

I believe promiscuity is immoral, but given that you think marriage is about sex and you want to deny marriage to homosexuals, I’m not sure about your view. So to clarify, do you want to refuse acknowledging a long-term committed relationship between a homosexual couple?

It’s what the “long-term” commited relationship involves and how you are acknowledging it.

I want to refuse marriage to homosexual couples, because I don’t want the sexual acts of homosexuality to be related to moral family life.

If you can’t remember my answers, please refer to my posts instead of asking the same question over and over and ever.

I have gone over your previous posts and it is answered in relation to sexual acts and abuse, in which I told you why you cannot include them and thus your reasoning demands a different answer.

You may not realize that “father of all lies” is a reference to John 8:44, and you are therefore implicitly calling supporters of gay marriage the children of Satan.

I know it is in relation to John 8:44, I am not saying that supporters of gay marriage are children of satan, I am saying that they have been tricked by satan into supporting gay marriage, because it’s out of a false sense of love.

The remark seems to have backfired badly in Argentina, which shortly after it was said became the first South American country to legalize gay marriage.

Doesn’t matter, it’s the truth.

So by all means keep saying it, it seems a sure-fire way of getting your brothers and sisters in Christ to support gay marriage.

Revelation 17:1-5

17 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls,** having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:**

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

Remember that at the time this was written, the sexual acts of homosexuality were called an “abomination.”

You will probably laugh at my reference to revelation, but the more sexually immoral our society gets, the closer this will be and you are advocating this sexual immorality.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Portofino]

Yes. Catholics are some of those who think Christ has authorized them personally to tell others (not only Christians) what they must and must not believe.

In fact, we are mandated to do this.

It’s a very blurred line between telling other people what they must believe, and mandating to others how they must live.

When a Catholic speaks in the name of religious freedom, he essentially is saying, “no one should have the right to restrict my religious liberties, just because he thinks he is permitted – by God, or by man – to tell me what I ought to believe, or how I ought to live.”

A Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon certainly believes he is mandated to tell Catholics what they ought to be believe, and does tell them. So long as he tries to use persuasion, not force, he is engaging in fair play; which doesn’t change the impression many Catholics have, that this other person’s religion is being “forced down their throat.”

There are forms of proselytizing that seem to cross invisible lines of respect for others’ freedom, or respect for their own beliefs.

Ecumenism seems to depend on this basic respect for the beliefs of others, in the sense that – if the Dalai Lama visits with the pope – he is not made to feel harassed, harangued, to get baptized and to read the Bible, nor is he made to feel belittled for not doing so.

object to telling others what they must and must not believe is akin to objecting to a professor telling her students that the slope of a curve can be defined as

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/d/4/dd4a28f1297687c4334d50dd5e87eea0.png

Or objecting to a physician telling her patient, “You need to stop believing that you’re invincible. If you don’t start checking your blood sugar and taking your insulin, you are going to die.”

Reasoning minds have been able to come to relative consensus on the propositions of mathematics. It is not so, with religion.

, yes, anyone who has any interest in Truth ought to be interested in proclaiming to others what this Truth is.

I would go so far as to say that, in mixed company, a greater degree of neutrality may be appropriate, such that – if you have two sides, Catholic and Muslims, both who are convinced they have the Truth – one would say, “as Catholics, we believe that the truth has been given to us.” Then the Muslim side can say, “as Muslims, we believe that truth has been given to us.” There would be a basic recognition that, although we believe we have the truth and have an obligation to enlighten others, others believe that they have the truth, and that it is their job to enlighten us.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you’re claiming God inspired the writer of Exodus with “you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” around 500 BC while at roughly the same time inspiring Confucius with the rather different “never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself” and then five hundred years later He standardized on the latter with “do to others as you would have them do to you”?

Now are you at the same time claiming that God never changes?



Come on, you must be able to see the funny side of that.

Actually, I don’t see anything inconsistent in the three events. A truly just person would recognize that the wrong they have done to others ought to justly be done to them. Now, an unmerciful person might insist on inflicting just punishment on all wrongdoers, whereas a merciful person would understand the point of forgiveness. However, what a person who is truly sorrowful for their wrongs would see is that they deserve the same ill treatment they have served to others.

OK, apologies for doubting you.

I won’t be demanding you receive your thirty lashes, although you do deserve them.

Should we believe in geocentrism because Christians once did? Should be believe mental illness is caused by demons because people once did? Should we believe in keeping slaves because the bible, in several places, tells us who we can make slaves?

None of these are irreconcilable with modern Christian thinking.

1. The Earth may be the centre of the universe, speaking spiritually if no other life exists. The Earth could well have special significance. We need not be understanding this idea literally. Also it is not clear that all Christians ”once did" think that.
2. You don’t know that instances of what you call “mental illness” were not of demonic origin. Christ and the writers of the Gospels claimed they were. Are you saying they were mistaken? You must not believe in the divinity of Christ, then?
3. You are confusing the moral law with the practical application of it. In those times it may have been more moral to keep some individuals as “servants” for a time because the alternative could have been less tolerable. You need to stop looking at historical situations with modern lenses.

Jesus didn’t think much of those who put the letter of the Law before the spirit. I think we can move forward, we don’t need to set scripture in stone, we can act in the Spirit of Christ.

How do you know you are doing so? Doesn’t the fact that you are contradicting Scripture, tradition, Church teaching, historical Judaic beliefs and natural moral law give you pause? It should, given the only reason you think you are acting “in the Spirit of Christ” is only a personal conviction that you are.

Those of us who don’t oppose gay marriage.

Born again, dude.

Well done. It was fun putting that post together though.

There are a lot of Christians who think Christ has authorized them personally to tell other Christians what they must and must not believe, and if you’re not one of them then apologies for misinterpreting your words.

And you are not one of “them” in your posts? Why are you bothering to post except to convince others of what they should, as Christians, believe? Hypocritical, no?

It has been consistent in Judeo-Christian history that some have had the authority to tell others what to believe as true followers of God. God has, in fact, given some that authority - Moses, the prophets, the judges, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, the Saints. Now you are claiming that entire lineage of individuals speaking for God were simply deluded and should not have been listened to because God does not work that way. Does he really speak authoritatively to each individual. 30000 denominations consisting of individuals who think they are correctly interpreting God’s Spirit seems to argue strongly against your fundamental position. I would suspect 30000 dissenting voices do not speak for God no matter how sincerely they believe they are or believe they have been “born again.”

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a very blurred line between telling other people what they must believe, and mandating to others how they must live.

Yes. No one ought to be mandating to others how to live. Except, of course, God.

When a Catholic speaks in the name of religious freedom, he essentially is saying, “no one should have the right to restrict my religious liberties, just because he thinks he is permitted – by God, or by man – to tell me what I ought to believe, or how I ought to live.”

Yes.

A Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon certainly believes he is mandated to tell Catholics what they ought to be believe, and does tell them. So long as he tries to use persuasion, not force, he is engaging in fair play; which doesn’t change the impression many Catholics have, that this other person’s religion is being “forced down their throat.”

I can’t speak for “many Catholics” in this context, but I have never felt that a JW or LDS is forcing his religion down my throat, so I am confused about this comment.

There are forms of proselytizing that seem to cross invisible lines of respect for others’ freedom, or respect for their own beliefs.

To be sure.

Ecumenism seems to depend on this basic respect for the beliefs of others, in the sense that – if the Dalai Lama visits with the pope – he is not made to feel harassed, harangued, to get baptized and to read the Bible, nor is he made to feel belittled for not doing so.

Yes. This is the Catholic model of respect for all human persons.

Reasoning minds have been able to come to relative consensus on the propositions of mathematics. It is not so, with religion.

People may claim to be able to think for themselves their own truths, but it’s quite obvious that when one proposes things which have divorced themselves from truth, it doesn’t turn out well for them.

I would go so far as to say that, in mixed company, a greater degree of neutrality may be appropriate, such that – if you have two sides, Catholic and Muslims, both who are convinced they have the Truth – one would say, “as Catholics, we believe that the truth has been given to us.” Then the Muslim side can say, “as Muslims, we believe that truth has been given to us.” There would be a basic recognition that, although we believe we have the truth and have an obligation to enlighten others, others believe that they have the truth, and that it is their job to enlighten us.

Certainly. That’s why dialogue and fides quaerens intellectum is the path which leads to Him.

 

[Portofino]

In that case you admit - are unconcerned - that homosexual marriage exposes children to a greater risk of infection

Adoption by two homosexual men, in and of itself, does not expose children to a greater risk of infection. One can’t make the assumption that these two homosexual men have engaged in promiscuous, non-monogamous sexual behavior, just because they are homosexual. For all we know, they are both churchgoing Christians who take monogamy seriously.

The law, obviously, treats people as individuals, in most domains. To do otherwise – for example, to assume certain behavior, based on skin color – would be discriminatory.

Strictly speaking, women who sleep with men are at greater risk of contracting HIV, than women who sleep with women.

Thus, with women, the equation is reversed – the exclusively homosexual who have had multiple partners are less likely to have contracted a sexually transmissible disease, not more likely.

] to do with the needs, interests and development of children and that bringing up children by a gay couple is preferable to being brought up by a heterosexual couple?

To read what you’re saying, one would assume that you have strong feelings against single parent adoption. Is that an accurate statement?

As far as I know, however, Catholic organizations are not at all against single-parent adoption, even though – by the standards by which you define it – this involves “deliberately” depriving a child of having two parents, thus depriving them either of a father, or a mother.

Adoption by a same sex couple, by this standard, is preferable to single parent adoption, because single parent adoption deprives children both of having two parents, and of either a father or a mother. A same sex couple who adopts, on the other hand, is at least giving a child the benefit of having two parents or guardians.

What I think you are really saying is that, aside from depriving a child of a “mother or a father” – which single parent adoption blatantly does – same sex adoption is giving a child one mother, or father too many And, of course, are potentially “confusing” the child, regarding what is the “normal” relationship between the sexes.

This speaks to underlying differences in perspective as to what constitutes the origin of homosexuality; is it is genetic? Is it environmental?

All we know is that the majority of homosexual young adults were raised in a strongly heterosexually-affirmative environment – both on the familial level, and the societal level. Society’s reinforcement of heterosexuality is, indeed, incredibly strong, yet these children still grow up to be homosexual, and – in the eyes of most neutral observers – that orientation proves to be profound and unalterable, at least internally (externally, they can always use their willpower to counteract it, for example by entering into a heterosexual marriage; but many find that they are not strong enough to maintain that “emotional dissonance” for the rest of their lives).

Getting back to the actual terms of your argument, I think it is necessary for a single parent who adopts to find some role model for the children, who belongs to the opposite gender of that parent. For example, if a single woman adopts, perhaps her brother will be the child’s godfather, and will take a more significant role in the child’s life, than he would have otherwise. Perhaps that role model could be the grandfather, if he is still living; or, perhaps, it would be a godfather who was one of the mother’s friends, or perhaps a first cousin.

Just so, if two women are raising a child, they will want to ensure that this child has some kind of father figure in his life (and the same, of course, would ideally apply in the case of a widow, whose husband died when the children were young), even if that father figure is not the biological father.

I would imagine that the majority of same sex parents would give their (presumably) heterosexual child a benefit that they never had, when they themselves grew up in a heterosexual family, and an emphatically heterosexual society. That is, they would tell the child, “some people are homosexual, and others are heterosexual. Neither should be forced on you.” That child may see his same sex parents displaying affection, in the household; yet, when they go to the local restaurant, even if he is a toddler, he will see a preponderance of heterosexual couples engaging in “public displays of affection.” He will see it on television and movies; he will see on billboards; when he goes to school, he will see that this is, indeed, the “norm.” I would argue that, even with same sex parents, that child will feel a good deal of social pressure to take an interest in the opposite sex.

Intelligent, caring same sex parents will not try to “hide” that from the child, and will not try to “program” him to think that being gay is right, and that being heterosexual is wrong.

One can argue over this, but I believe that the child will simply be given an opportunity to take a “mature” outlook on things, in terms of having a greater recognition of difference and diversity of perspective; just as a mixed-race child (like Obama) will grow up with the recognition that most people around him look differently than he; just as a Jewish child will grow up with the recognition that he is living in a Christian-dominant society, and that he is different; just like an adopted child, will realize that he is living in a society where most children live with their biological parents; just as a bilingual child, will realize that the language he speaks with his parents at home, is very different than the language being spoken by the majority of the society in which he lives.

 

[tonyrey]

I said my impression is there are a lot of studies which reach the opposite conclusion. If you make this google scholar search you’ll see lots of papers, and if you look a the papers you’ll see lots of references to other studiees.

Please cite research papers with evidence that children are more content, more developed and more fulfilled when they live with two male adults or two female adults rather than with a man and a woman who care for them as a father and mother.

In that case you admit - are unconcerned - that homosexual marriage exposes children to a greater risk of infection

Doesn’t follow - I said it’s the responsibility of adoption agencies to ensure children are not put at risk.

They are put at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals.

A blatant non sequitur! The moral status of marriage is not determined by adoption agencies.

So when you said “adoption agencies take the nature of the prospective adopters’ relationship into account regardless of whether they are married - which is another reason why the demand for gay marriage is absurd” what you actually meant was “the moral status of marriage is not determined by adoption agencies so it’s not another reason in any shape or form”.
I fail to understand the implication of your statement.

They are essentially different sexual relationships, one of which leads to a greater risk of infection.

So you think a heterosexual marrying a drug addict prostitute has less risk of infection than Elton John from his long-term partner?

Yet another non sequitur! You are resorting to desperate extremes in your attempt to evade the fact that children are put at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals than by the vast majority of heterosexuals who are not drug addict prostitutes.

Your failure to answer the questions weakens your case considerably. Do you really believe the paternal and maternal instincts are illusions, that the father and mother fulfil identical functions in bringing up the children, that two men can understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman, that two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man, that the evolution of the two sexes had nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children and that bringing up children by a gay couple is preferable to being brought up by a heterosexual couple?

Evasion just forces me to repeat the point (and it’s a serious point, not a debating game), so again:

I’m delighted you admit being evasive.

The reason I asked for a supporting argument / evidence is I don’t know whether these traits are biological, i.e. exactly the same in all cultures, or if they vary by culture.

You don’t know whether paternal and maternal instincts are illusions or whether the father and mother fulfil identical functions in bringing up the children, whether two men can understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman, whether two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man or whether the evolution of the two sexes had nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children **simply because cultures vary? **This is one of the feeblest arguments you have ever produced!

1. Is there any reason why being brought up by a gay couple is preferable to being brought up by a heterosexual couple?

If they vary by culture then changing the culture will change the traits. For example, the survey I linked indicates that homophobic discrimination varies quite widely between different EU states, which is strong evidence that the discrimination is cultural and not natural.

How does homophobic discrimination affect the paternal and maternal instincts, an adolescent girl as well as a woman or whether two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man or whether the evolution of the two sexes has nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children?

Also, for instance what if the two men are the girl’s long-time parents while the woman is a childless stranger? In other words you cannot treat people as if they are machines, you cannot wave your hand and choose one trait while ignoring all other factors.

Two men cannot be anyone’s parents!

1. Religious considerations are irrelevant to the topic.

So just yesterday in #848 you were irrelevant to the topic when you said:

"Unfortunately you have rejected Design - which rules out an appeal to the teaching of Jesus (who pointed to the beauty of the lilies as evidence of divine purpose and love). Moreover the topic is secular arguments against gay marriage which rules out an appeal to the religious basis of morality - unless you believe in one law for you and another for your opponents… "

My response was to your reference to the Golden Rule which did not have a secular origin - an extraordinary claim coming from one who claims to be a Christian - but the teaching of Jesus. Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were concerned with equality - not unselfish love.

1. Children should not be deliberately deprived of a father and a mother by two men or two women because children are persons who also have equal rights.
   We can’t discuss this until you support your claim (see the points above about biological vs. cultural differences). It also remains completely off-topic since gay marriage doesn’t change the large number of children already living in gay families.

The issue is whether gay marriage is morally justified.

Which is still irrelevant to gay marriage since in your country and many others unmarried same-sex couples have been able to adopt for many years

Historical precedents do not determine moral values.Irrelevant, it is still off-topic.

The issue is whether gay marriage is morally justified.

 

[inocente]

Yes, I do understand, thats why in my previous post I said** “True.” **I was asking you that if you were an elected politician on what grounds would you refuse incestuous and polygamous marriage?

Isn’t it obvious? Politicians are representatives of the people and the people don’t want it.

*You stated that sex is irrelevant to marriage and in your answers you mentioned sex. So no you haven’t answered this question without it being in refference to sex.

You also answered it in refference to “abuse.” Like I said before it is not the case for all incestuous or polygamous relationships, just like promiscuity is not the case for all homosexual relationships.

I feel similar, can you please read my questions and try to answer them, if you think you are repeating yourself than just link the post in which you think you have already replied and I will explain to you how the question fundamentally differs.*

Sorry but I don’t have time to do that.

I think our conversation has strayed off-topic, and to get away from these very long posts which get so confusing I make a suggestion at the end of this post.

Now for better for worse, in sickness and in health, I’m going to be very brief on the rest of your points to put an end to all the repetition.

Could you please find me a Church that denies God as our creator?

Of course God is our creator. All I’ve tried to say is that in common with most Christians, at least outside the USA, I do not subscribe to any Intelligent Design cult. Can you not understand that Intelligent Design was invented in the USA in the last century and has nothing to do with Christ? If you really know nothing of it, please ask your priest to explain.

I gave the verses to show that traditionally Christianity is about Christ, not about design cults.
josh987654321;10765663:

Are you kidding me? Christianity is about Christ, being the son of God.

That’s exactly what I wrote. Read it again. Now read it again. And one more time. And once more for luck.

I didn’t call you a liar. But I am questioning the sincerity of your faith as I am questioning the sincerity of all of those Catholics who are a part of my faith also.

You may get yourself banned for that - the forum rules say It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs.

Please continue to next post

Couldn’t see anything in your other posts that wasn’t repetition. My suggestion is we go back to the OP. Do you have a strong secular argument? If so state it, and then ask me any questions you like which you think I’ve not answered before (just as long as they are relevant to your argument so we don’t get into all the repetition again).

Here’s the OP:

Obviously my Catholic perspective means nothing to non-Catholics and especially to the many people who are not religious. Is there a strong secular argument against gay marriage? It seems like a lot of the non-religious arguments I’ve read were either pretty weak or had slightly Christian undertones.

 

[inocente]

So you’re claiming God inspired the writer of Exodus with “you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” around 500 BC while at roughly the same time inspiring Confucius with the rather different “never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself” and then five hundred years later He standardized on the latter with “do to others as you would have them do to you”?

Now are you at the same time claiming that God never changes?



Come on, you must be able to see the funny side of that.
Peter Plato;10765793:

Actually, I don’t see anything inconsistent in the three events. A truly just person would recognize that the wrong they have done to others ought to justly be done to them. Now, an unmerciful person might insist on inflicting just punishment on all wrongdoers, whereas a merciful person would understand the point of forgiveness. However, what a person who is truly sorrowful for their wrongs would see is that they deserve the same ill treatment they have served to others.

You keep digging that ditch. The thing is, Jesus, a.k.a. God, comprehensively countermanded eye for an eye, thus according to you an unchanging God changed His mind: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Do you not think that if God gave us free will then it logically follows that some morals were not inspired by God and so your argument is R.I.P.?

I won’t be demanding you receive your thirty lashes, although you do deserve them.

Please see Matt 5:38-42 as quoted above.

*None of these are irreconcilable with modern Christian thinking.

1. The Earth may be the centre of the universe, speaking spiritually if no other life exists. The Earth could well have special significance. We need not be understanding this idea literally. Also it is not clear that all Christians ”once did" think that.

1. You don’t know that instances of what you call “mental illness” were not of demonic origin. Christ and the writers of the Gospels claimed they were. Are you saying they were mistaken? You must not believe in the divinity of Christ, then?

1. You are confusing the moral law with the practical application of it. In those times it may have been more moral to keep some individuals as “servants” for a time because the alternative could have been less tolerable. You need to stop looking at historical situations with modern lenses.*

Thanks so much for teaching me to suck eggs.

So what do you think changed to make the following less tolerable? “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.” - Ex 21:20-21

*How do you know you are doing so? Doesn’t the fact that you are contradicting Scripture, tradition, Church teaching, historical Judaic beliefs and natural moral law give you pause? It should, given the only reason you think you are acting “in the Spirit of Christ” is only a personal conviction that you are. *

Is that the historical tradition I just quoted? When you obey the command in Lev 20:13 you will earn the right to preach from on high about obeying scripture. But will also be in prison of course.

*And you are not one of “them” in your posts? Why are you bothering to post except to convince others of what they should, as Christians, believe? Hypocritical, no? *

No, and it’s disingenuous of you to say so as you’re surely bright enough to know there’s a world of difference between that and Christians accusing each other of not being the Real Scotsman.

It has been consistent in Judeo-Christian history that some have had the authority to tell others what to believe as true followers of God. God has, in fact, given some that authority - Moses, the prophets, the judges, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, the Saints. Now you are claiming that entire lineage of individuals speaking for God were simply deluded and should not have been listened to because God does not work that way. Does he really speak authoritatively to each individual. 30000 denominations consisting of individuals who think they are correctly interpreting God’s Spirit seems to argue strongly against your fundamental position. I would suspect 30000 dissenting voices do not speak for God no matter how sincerely they believe they are or believe they have been “born again.”

I was just saying that laity with no authority from their Church or anywhere else can safely be ignored when they pontificate about what Christians must and must not believe.

You’ll have to find someone else if you’re looking to start a sectarian squabble.

 

[inocente]

Please cite research papers with evidence that children are more content, more developed and more fulfilled when they live with two male adults or two female adults rather than with a man and a woman who care for them as a father and mother.

I gave a link to lots of research, if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children rather than just scoring debating points then by all means have a look:

scholar.google.es/scholar?hl=en&q=gay+adoption+research&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

They are put at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals.

Please cite evidence that children in homosexual families have a higher rate of infection that those in heterosexual families.

I fail to understand the implication of your statement.

Never mind then.

Yet another non sequitur! You are resorting to desperate extremes in your attempt to evade the fact that children are put at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals than by the vast majority of heterosexuals who are not drug addict prostitutes.

No, I am ridiculing your attempt to tar an entire group of 100 or 200 million people with one brush.

I’m delighted you admit being evasive.

Again, I’m not playing debating games and would have liked to explore that point, but it seems you don’t want to go there for some reason.

*You don’t know whether paternal and maternal instincts are illusions or whether the father and mother fulfil identical functions in bringing up the children, whether two men can understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman, whether two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man or whether the evolution of the two sexes had nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children **simply because cultures vary? ***This is one of the feeblest arguments you have ever produced!

As I said, I would have liked you to provide supporting evidence so we could discuss it but clearly that’s not going to happen, which is disappointing.

*How does homophobic discrimination affect the paternal and maternal instincts, an adolescent girl as well as a woman or whether two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man or whether the evolution of the two sexes has nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children? *

Clearly I gave homophobic discrimination as an example of a behavior which is culturally dependent and not an unchanging part of human nature. Your supposed differences between male and female behavior may also culturally dependent, please cite evidence they are not.

Two men cannot be anyone’s parents!

*My response was to your reference to the Golden Rule which did not have a secular origin - an extraordinary claim coming from one who claims to be a Christian - but the teaching of Jesus. Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were concerned with equality - not unselfish love. *

Just change the rules to make your hypothesis fit. One rule for the rich, another for the poor.

*The issue is whether gay marriage is morally justified.

The issue is whether gay marriage is morally justified.*

So why do you keep going off-topic?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You keep digging that ditch. The thing is, Jesus, a.k.a. God, comprehensively countermanded eye for an eye, thus according to you an unchanging God changed His mind: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Do you not think that if God gave us free will then it logically follows that some morals were not inspired by God and so your argument is R.I.P.?

So you are saying the Old Testament was not inspired by God?

Jesus didn’t countermand the Old Testament because there is no contradiction between what justice demands (eye for eye) and Jesus’ words of caution concerning how a sinful human being should respond when wronged.

Jesus’ teaching concerned how we as sinners should treat each other regarding the demand for retribution. Clearly, his point was about bearing wrongs done in order to demonstrate a particular attitude regarding who ought to mete out justice - that God will do so in his time. We are not to provide others an excuse to continue a sequence of harm by rendering harm in return for harm. That, however, does not mean someone who does harm to others is going to escape retribution. Just retribution will come to all of us for evil we have done; it is likewise important that we should not take it upon ourselves to be vengeful and thereby ruin our own spiritual formation.

I noticed you didn’t use the following as one of your Biblical quotes:

Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass, one stroke or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-19)

It is not according to me, it is you who are claiming that “unchanging God changed His mind.”

 

[tonyrey]

Please cite research papers with evidence that children are more content, more developed and more fulfilled when they live with two male adults or two female adults rather than with a man and a woman who care for them as a father and mother.
I gave a link to lots of research, if you’re actually concerned about the well-being of children rather than just scoring debating points then by all means have a look:

Please cite evidence that children in homosexual families have a higher rate of infection that those in heterosexual families.The simple fact that children are at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals is sufficient reason not to legitimise gay marriage - especially when taken in conjunction with the attempt to destroy the basic unit of family life.

I fail to understand the implication of your statement.

Never mind then.Without clarification there is no evidence that the statement makes sense.

You are resorting to desperate extremes in your attempt to evade the fact that children are put at greater risk when they are adopted by homosexuals than by the vast majority of heterosexuals who are not drug addict prostitutes.

No, I am ridiculing your attempt to tar an entire group of 100 or 200 million people with one brush.A ridiculous attempt at ridicule based on a desperate expedient!

Again, I’m not playing debating games and would have liked to explore that point, but it seems you don’t want to go there for some reason.

A person who is confident of success wouldn’t hesitate for one moment to pursue the subject…

You don’t know whether paternal and maternal instincts are illusions or whether the father and mother fulfil identical functions in bringing up the children, whether two men can understand an adolescent girl as well as a woman, whether two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man or whether the evolution of the two sexes had nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children simply because cultures vary?

As I said, I would have liked you to provide supporting evidence so we could discuss it but clearly that’s not going to happen, which is disappointing.
How does homophobic discrimination affect the paternal and maternal instincts, an adolescent girl as well as a woman or whether two women can understand an adolescent boy as well as a man or whether the evolution of the two sexes has nothing to do with the needs, interests and development of children?Clearly I gave homophobic discrimination as an example of a behavior which is culturally dependent and not an unchanging part of human nature.
Homophobic discrimination is irrelevant to the reality of paternal and maternal instincts, the physical and psychological needs of adolescents and the evolution of the male and female characteristics.

Your supposed differences between male and female behavior may also culturally dependent, please cite evidence they are not.

Is the function of the woman to bear, suckle and care for her child culturally dependent?

Two men cannot be anyone’s parents!

The fact remains that two men cannot be parents.

My response was to your reference to the Golden Rule which did not have a secular origin - an extraordinary claim coming from one who claims to be a Christian - but the teaching of Jesus. Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were concerned with equality - not unselfish love.

Just change the rules to make your hypothesis fit. One rule for the rich, another for the poor.The fact remains that Confucius, Pittacus, Thales and Sextus were concerned with equality - not the unselfish love to be found in the life, death and teaching of Jesus.

The issue is whether gay marriage is morally justified.

So why do you keep going off-topic? To imply that the argument for gay marriage has nothing to do with morality is consistent with the view that morality is determined solely by passing fashions, the laws of the state and the behaviour of the majority - which is not only unChristian but at odds with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[/QUOTE]

 

[josh987654321]

JackieMom;10542778:

Obviously my Catholic perspective means nothing to non-Catholics and especially to the many people who are not religious. Is there a strong secular argument against gay marriage? It seems like a lot of the non-religious arguments I’ve read were either pretty weak or had slightly Christian undertones.

There is no such thing as a secular argument on morality.

A secular argument on morality by it’s very definition is void of any moral law giver (God) and without a moral law giver there is no moral law and without a moral law there is nothing to distinguish between right and wrong or good and bad and thus it is pure subjectivism.

The secular argument on morality is that there is no morality without God, without God there is no right and wrong or good and evil.

Id like to see the question refrased to “is there a secular argument for gay marriage?” and see how you go inocente.

You are the one advocating sexual immorality Inocente, I just wish you would open your eyes and see what you are supporting, I followed this path because for you to come to a conclusion that says that the sexual acts of homosexuality are moral based on sacred scripture is completely irrational.

Elizabeth502 said -

It is thoroughly ahistorical to imagine that Jesus approved of homosexuality (and yet that revolutionary statement never made it into the NT, even though the radical-enough discussion of Gentile circumcision did). It conflicts with the history, anthropology, and cuture of the time. Anyone who manipulates the text to arrive at the “conclusion” that Christ would see nothing wrong with the sexual acts of homosexuality is being disingenuous, or eisegetical for personal or political reasons.

**Mathew 19:4
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, **

God created only male and female to be united in marriage.

Revelation 17:1-5

17 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Is there a secular argument for morality? Is there a secular argument for right and wrong or good and bad? Is there a secular argument against killing (murder)? Is there a secular argument against sexual immorality? Is there a secular argument against gay marriage?

If there were a secular argument for morality, than Abortion would clearly be recognised for what it is. Murder of the highest degree of an innocent defenseless child.

But this is what happens when society demands a secular argument for it’s morality, for it’s laws. Morality becomes pure subjective and thus ultimately destroys any real morality, because through subjectivism, evil is justified. Do you think the Nazis thought they were doing anything wrong? subjectivism justifies all evil.

Can you give a completely secular argument void of God why what the Nazis did was wrong?

It is in the void of God where evil thrives.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Lochias]

That particular law and custom is “They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Lev 20:13).

So are you saying Jesus doesn’t want his followers to ignore that? Or wants them to ignore one verse but not another?

In response, I ask: Do you think adultery is still a sin, or not? They stoned people to death for that, too. Because we no longer kill someone for it by law, does that mean it’s now perfectly ok?

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?’ (Luke 10)

So how would you answer Jesus, what do you think is written in the Law?

But I’m not asking what I must do to inherit eternal life. I’m not asking anything of Jesus at all; I’m asking you.

If we no longer stone people for adultery, how is it still sinful? Please answer the question.

 

[Lochias]

The Church has changed the Apostle’s Creed to read “I believe in the intelligent design agent, designer of heaven and earth”?

…you believe God didn’t design us? You don’t believe that God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, wouldn’t design that creation?

Revelation and 2,000 years of Christianity wiped out for an American cult that’s already on its last legs?

I take it you’re not being serious, thanks for the laugh.

You’ve totally jumped the rails here, and I have no clue as to what you’re talking about. If you believe God incapable of designing anything, then your take on theology has more twists than a pretzel factory.

 

[Muze]

Obviously my Catholic perspective means nothing to non-Catholics and especially to the many people who are not religious. Is there a strong secular argument against gay marriage? It seems like a lot of the non-religious arguments I’ve read were either pretty weak or had slightly Christian undertones.

My secular argument against issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals is that the reason government issues licenses is to support joining two individuals who will tend to procreate together. Homosexuals can’t do that.

My evidence comes from Loving v. Virginia, which defined the right to be married, and that cites Oklahoma v. Skinner in saying that “marriage and procreation are essential to the furtherance of the [human] race.”

Now, there is no law against gays going to take vows together. No state prevent this from happening. However, the state (via the courts) have stated that their interest in having marriage licenses is in the fact that it takes a male and a female to procreate together, and that is the states’ sole interest in issuing licenses.

 

[CandideWest]

In the same way that eating food is “ordered towards” providing the body with nutrients, sex is the normal biological means by which new human beings are produced. So sex is ordered towards procreation of new human life.
.

Ahh, interesting. So it looks like chewing gum is indeed disordered and sinful then. Because it is using the mouth, saliva glands, the action of chewing etc in a manner which is not “ordered towards” providing the body with nutrients. I suspected as much but wasn’t sure.

Interesting. Out of curiosity why do I never see Catholics campaigning against this “disordered and sinful” behaviour?

 

[CandideWest]

I think this analogy, borrowed from the wickedly funny yet orthodox and trenchant Catholic blogger, Marc Barnes, limns the difference quite well:

Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the 2011 World Series champs, the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules** their play is still ordered toward its proper end.**

But in the case of homosexual unions, the play itself is changed. It would be like showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other, so that even if they have the intent of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can’t possibly be ordered toward that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.

No, I’m afraid this doesn’t help at all. If we use that analogy then it appears we would have to conclude that infertile people are playing a different game as well. They to are utterly unable to score a run, not just unlikely or difficult, but impossible.

Unless I suppose you are trying to argue that sexual morality is a question of nothing more than following a predefined set of rules of conduct, in which case we’d need to establish where those rules are given that can be considered a secular argument. The options as far as I can see are either

a). Claim that they are in our biology, in which case infertility still defies those rules.

b). Refer to the rule books of a religion, which is of course not secular.

But perhaps I’ve missed an option?

 

[PRmerger]

Ahh, interesting. So it looks like chewing gum is indeed disordered and sinful then. Because it is using the mouth, saliva glands, the action of chewing etc in a manner which is not “ordered towards” providing the body with nutrients. I suspected as much but wasn’t sure.

Interesting. Out of curiosity why do I never see Catholics campaigning against this “disordered and sinful” behaviour?

Gum is not a nutrient. It doesn’t qualify as food, and chewing gum is not considered eating.