What if the Church's teaching on homosexuality is wrong?

[bingbang]

It is the same arguement as NFP. One is selflish the other is not.

How is homosexuality selfish?

 

[bingbang]

If the Church teaching were wrong, all that is lost is some pleasure and hedonism, nothing more. If the Church is right, and we follow the teaching, we gain everything. If we assume the Church is wrong and do our own thing, we risk losing everything. The smart money, therefore, is on the Church teaching being right and worthy of belief.

So a lifelong same sex companion is just “pleasure and hedonism, nothing more?” Seriously???

And to answer this quote:

“If we assume the Church is wrong and do our own thing, we risk losing everything. The smart money, therefore, is on the Church teaching being right and worthy of belief.”

In accepting the Catholic Church you are rejecting every other religion. So is Catholicism really the “smart money?”

 

[bingbang]

On a Catholic forum…hmmmm. I guess you could use the same argument with any concept. If you think about it without God might makes right. Justification is not needed not desired for any topic. In fact Darwinism would rule and in a society with no souls to worry about homosexual conduct would be tolerated because offspring could be limited from that branch?..Rape would of course be the rule in order to have as much DNA around as possible…Yep without God it seems like we would be just like animals… horses, cattle, dogs and pigs.

This just isn’t true at all. There are plenty of nations that have a majority of atheists and they are all doing quite well for themselves. They don’t seem to be like animals at all.

 

[bingbang]

Just by looking at the consequences and bad fruits of homosexuality, you can see it is wrong.

I could say the same thing about heterosexual sex. There are plenty of consequences and bad fruits doing that as well.

 

[Corki]

How is homosexuality selfish?

Homosexuality is not selfish. Pursuing homosexual unions or simulated marriages is selfish.

Some of the reasons are:

It puts personal pleasure ahead of love of God.
Second, it puts personal fullfillment ahead of the good of others around them.
Third, it puts personal agendas ahead of service to families.

I am sure there are many other reasons.

 

[bingbang]

Homosexuality is not selfish. Pursuing homosexual unions or simulated marriages is selfish.

Some of the reasons are:

It puts personal pleasure ahead of love of God.
Second, it puts personal fullfillment ahead of the good of others around them.
Third, it puts personal agendas ahead of service to families.

I am sure there are many other reasons.

If you don’t believe in God or that homosexuality is a sin, your first argument is taken out. As for your second and third arguments, can you please fill me in on how those work?

How does homosexuality effect the good of others and how does it hurt service to families?

 

[Mumbles140]

This just isn’t true at all. There are plenty of nations that have a majority of atheists and they are all doing quite well for themselves. They don’t seem to be like animals at all.

Statistics, please, showing which sovereignties are “a majority of atheists”, as well as your basis for judging them as ‘doing quite well for themselves’, and statistical data to back you up on that assessment.

Please provide this quickly (assuming you have the information on hand to support your belief) because without that, you are continuing to do what you have done the entire time - avoid providing hard facts in lieu of one-liners that are purely argumentative and have even contradicted your previous statements solely for the fact of not conceding that you may be wrong in this matter.

 

[bingbang]

Statistics, please, showing which sovereignties are “a majority of atheists”, as well as your basis for judging them as ‘doing quite well for themselves’, and statistical data to back you up on that assessment.

Please provide this quickly (assuming you have the information on hand to support your belief) because without that, you are continuing to do what you have done the entire time - avoid providing hard facts in lieu of one-liners that are purely argumentative and have even contradicted your previous statements solely for the fact of not conceding that you may be wrong in this matter.

This wikipedia page has proper sources.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#cite_note-11

Here is another link:

impactlab.net/2006/03/26/the-50-countries-with-the-highest-percentage-of-atheists/

 

[estesbob]

This wikipedia page has proper sources.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#cite_note-11

Here is another link:

[impactlab.net/2006/03/26/the will 50-countries-with-the-highest-percentage-of-atheists/](http://www.impactlab.net/2006/03/26/the will 50-countries-with-the-highest-percentage-of-atheists/)

There is not a single country mentioned in the first link you posted that had the even a third of their citizenship listed as atheist.

The second link includes a disclaimer that the figures are not based on any kind of survey. In addition the statistics in the second link disagree with the statistics in the first link- hardly proof of a credible source, as it?

In short you have not been able to verify the blanket statement you made

 

[bingbang]

There is not a single country mentioned in the first link you posted that had the even a third of their citizenship listed as atheist.

The second link includes a disclaimer that the figures are not based on any kind of survey. In addition the statistics in the second link disagree with the statistics in the first link- hardly proof of a credible source, as it?

In short you have not been able to verify the blanket statement you made

Well then I will concede that there are countries that are doing quite well with large percentages of atheists. Obviously religion isn’t necessary for a country to be prosperous, and widespread religious belief does not seem to make a country better.

Here is another link about the most and least religious countries (and states). The question asked in the poll was “Is religion an important part of your daily life?”

dailyatheist.blogspot.com/2009/02/most-and-least-religious-countries-in.html

 

[Mumbles140]

This wikipedia page has proper sources.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#cite_note-11

Here is another link:

impactlab.net/2006/03/26/the-50-countries-with-the-highest-percentage-of-atheists/

First, the wikipedia tab has no country greater than 1/3 of non-believers, with France being the highest at 33%.

Secondly, the second link has numbers that greatly contradict wikipedia’s page, which has proper sources. For example, Sweden’s numbers on the 2nd link are twice as high as Wikipedia’s. Also, what kind of ‘credible source’ has a survey range that swings on almost a 40% range, not to mention that list includes non-believers (but not declared atheists) and agnostics. The source for this website is from one of the foremost atheists out there, so maybe providing the information he used in his book as opposed to concealing the true source of the information would be nice.

Lastly, you still failed to mention what you assessed these countries as ‘being successful’ were. Vietnam was listed at 81% non-believer/agnostic/atheist, so what makes them being ‘so well off?’ I’m not intending to knock Vietnam, I just want to know what your basis is. You rattle off rapid fire answers, but they are incomplete, illogical (based on your contradicting responses and contradicting data), and ultimately insulting to us, who are trying to have a legitimate result and are met with absolutel and reckless disagreement without thorough explanation why.

If you’re going to respond, please only do so if you’ll put some effort in defending your statements. If you’d rather not, just quote this and type “Pass” and I’ll withdraw from the argument on the spot.

 

[Mumbles140]

Well then I will concede that there are countries that are doing quite well with large percentages of atheists. Obviously religion isn’t necessary for a country to be prosperous, and widespread religious belief does not seem to make a country better.

Here is another link about the most and least religious countries (and states). The question asked in the poll was “Is religion an important part of your daily life?”

dailyatheist.blogspot.com/2009/02/most-and-least-religious-countries-in.html

But you can just as easily say that these countries are doing well because at least 2/3 of them believe in some God, and therefore believe in some moral code handed down by religion that they should follow!

 

[Mumbles140]

There is not a single country mentioned in the first link you posted that had the even a third of their citizenship listed as atheist.

The second link includes a disclaimer that the figures are not based on any kind of survey. In addition the statistics in the second link disagree with the statistics in the first link- hardly proof of a credible source, as it?

In short you have not been able to verify the blanket statement you made

Sorry, Bob - guess you snuck in there while I was typing up my response. Looks like I’m not the only one who noticed the gaping issues with the articles…

 

[estesbob]

Sorry, Bob - guess you snuck in there while I was typing up my response. Looks like I’m not the only one who noticed the gaping issues with the articles…

We’ll just chalk it up to great minds think alike

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There is not a single country mentioned in the first link you posted that had the even a third of their citizenship listed as atheist.

The second link includes a disclaimer that the figures are not based on any kind of survey. In addition the statistics in the second link disagree with the statistics in the first link- hardly proof of a credible source, as it?

In short you have not been able to verify the blanket statement you made

Not to mention the fact that anyone who resorts to using wikipedia as a source should lose the argument automatically.

 

[Seeker2010]

I would say that the change in what is acceptable isn’t necessarily a change in morality, but merely a change in public opinion, which is therefore becoming more and more immoral in that specific part of our society. How would you respond to this?

I’d respond by saying that I believe morality is reflective of what society deems moral, whereas you think there is a list of good and bad things given from God, which is not subject to modification by man. The problem with defining it that way is that were we able to time travel, we could easily find people from the past 2,000 years that would inform you that many things that you find moral are most certainly NOT, for the same reason you rail against homosexuality. Standards change, including those put forward by religion.

The natural world’s. Animals don’t stop procreating and become homosexual when food is short.

We’re not talking about animals, who in my observations tend to attempt to procreate as often as biologically possible, whereas planning pregnancies is something routinely done by humans. Some want no kids at all, others are waiting to cross certain things in their lives, still others have as many as they want. This wasn’t always the case, at least it wasn’t widespread, in days gone by we humans tended to have as many children as was biologically possible as well (trust me, I’ve done extensive genealogical research, and once you get back 100 or 150 years 8, 10, 12 kids was the norm).

I myself, by choice, have no kids. And yet I haven’t converted to homosexuality. Imagine that.

The point is that whether or not it grows, it is detrimental to the survival of the species. If 18 out of 20 people were immune to the plague, the plague is still detrimental to the genetic pool because you are losing genetic information (2 people), even if it cannot spread. For any population the more people you lose, whether or not the reason is infections or a behavioral trait that is non-beneficial (like goats who when they are startled faint, thus leaving them open to predation).

While that may be a factually accurate statement, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Legal SSM, or any other thing that you could possibly object to because it ‘legitimizes’ homosexuality will not affect the number of people who are actually homosexual. Won’t raise it. Won’t lower it. Those who are (or are going to be) gay, are (or will be). Just like I pointed out to the poster who said if my parents had chosen a homosexual lifestyle, nobody is going to go “Oh, same sex marriage is legal now? Cool, I think I’ll become gay.”

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

How is homosexuality selfish?

Read Dr. Janet Smith, Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubii…on selfish sex…

Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: “And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God’s viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for “know” in verse 5 is yada`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to “do not so wickedly.” Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

This is what is in the Bible so how do we counter it…discard it?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Survival, benefit, logic, happiness, and pleasure are not good enough to base your morality on.

And I agree. I believe that the unchangeable Word of God for the fulfillment of mankind’s purpose, nature, and glorification of God is a good reason to base my morality on. I think love (not the emotion, but the action, to act towards one’s ultimate good, that is, heaven, and for God) is a good thing to base your morality on. But we are discussing a situation in which there is no God, and as such, I only presented the reasons above so to give you some examples of reasons other moral philosophers proposed (like Mill, Kant, Aristotle, etc) since you have yet to provide any yourself.

I just find it hilarious that you are trying to say that without God nothing is right or wrong, so only religious morality has a purpose. Not everyone has compassion or can feel empathy, but that doesn’t mean that these things aren’t good reasons to treat others the way you want to be treated. In fact, the golden rule doesn’t mention God at all. Jesus preached the golden rule, but he wasn’t the person to invent it. It is a secular moral system.

A moral system has to work everywhere and anywhere. Emotions are fleeting, and so a bad start for a moral system (“if I have compassion for a person, I am obligated to help. If I don’t, I am not” is the natural consequence of basing morality off of emotions). The Golden Rule, as I would believe as a Catholic, was passed down by God. So important it was that God gave it to every religion through illumination of the mind. But that is a Christian opinion. The Golden Rule Jesus preached, from a Catholic perspective, means nothing if it doesn’t lead us to God. And because Jesus preached it, it has much to do with God.

But regardless of all this, if the reason why the golden rule you presented is emotion “Empathy” then my counter-argument is as stated above.
“if I have compassion for a person, I am obligated to help. If I don’t, I am not” is the natural consequence of basing morality off of emotions. Now you can choose to rebut that argument or find a different reason why in a world without God the Golden rule is right as opposed to a non-issue or pointless I would like to here it.

Your argument stands that without God, nothing is right or wrong. I am here to say that argument is stupid because you don’t have to be religious to know what is right and what is wrong.

Calling my argument stupid is not an argument in itself, and this counter-argument of yours shows you know little of my position. I never stated that the non-religious don’t know right from wrong (as a Catholic i believe the laws are God are written in everyone’s heart), I stated that without religion there can be no real issue of morality, since morals are dependent on absolute rights and wrongs that do not change, and many of the past atheistic thinkers would agree with me. However, for your sake I will not press this issue. This is merely an argument over semantics anyway.

So my question still stands, what, other than “empathy” would a moral system be based on in a world without religion? Or, in light of my comment, why do you still think “empathy” is a good thing to base a moral system on?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Change the subject? What are you talking about. Your arguments against homosexuality is that they are immoral because they don’t help the human race. Choosing to be celibate is equally as detrimental to the human race. Both homosexuals and celibate priests and nuns produce 0 offspring, yet you think one group is sinful because of this and one group is admirable because of this. Obviously your logic is faulty.

My argument still stands because we are talking about a world without religion. But, if it will make you happy so we can go on with our talk on homosexuality, then yes, in a world without God celibacy would be detrimental to the procreation of the species too. Now, can we continue talking about homosexuality?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Ok, i’m going to only respond to the important part of your first argument because arguing the rest will only bring us back in a circle.

I’d respond by saying that I believe morality is reflective of what society deems moral

Why?

Standards change, including those put forward by religion.

Change in public opinion does not mean change in what is moral right or wrong. In that case at some point the extermination of Jews was a good thing for a German to take part in and racism was a good thing for Americans to partake in back in the 50’s, if we follow that logic.

We’re not talking about animals, who in my observations tend to attempt to procreate as often as biologically possible, whereas planning pregnancies is something routinely done by humans. Some want no kids at all, others are waiting to cross certain things in their lives, still others have as many as they want. This wasn’t always the case, at least it wasn’t widespread, in days gone by we humans tended to have as many children as was biologically possible as well (trust me, I’ve done extensive genealogical research, and once you get back 100 or 150 years 8, 10, 12 kids was the norm).

This is actually quite good. You have argued that there is a distinction between animals and humans. But remember that it was you who presented this argument that homosexuality in times of starvation was more common in the wild. So I can simply say that by your own admission humans are different from animals, what animals do shouldn’t matter.

Also, homosexuality is seen in both affluent societies and in poor ones (though not as commonly seen in poor ones). 50% of Americans are obese, so the country has no problem with a shortage of food. Still we see homosexuality appear. So it is not a matter of how much food is around.

I myself, by choice, have no kids. And yet I haven’t converted to homosexuality. Imagine that.

Why do you keep pushing the argument that I said homosexuality is spreading like some sort of infections disease?

Again i will respond to the important parts of your last argument because the the part about SSM is irrelevant to the discussion, since again I am not saying homosexuality is spreading like an infectious disease, nor am I claiming it is a choice, nor is this discussion about SSM, but about homosexuality.

While that may be a factually accurate statement, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

My statement is not irrelevant. And that you admit that my statement is fairly accurate is then also admitting that indeed, homosexuality is bad for the procreation of the species.