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

[estesbob]

This remark belittles the real relationships of gays and lesbians, since it implies the relationships are only about self-directed sensuality.

I don’t see what the problem is in criticizing a sinful relationship. It would seem to be a bigger problem if somebody was to affrm such a relationship.

 

[davidv]

You really disarmed my argument. The argument I was trying to make was religion was not necessary for prosperous country, and I believe I proved that point. Just look at the 10 most religious countries and 10 least religious countries again and tell me which countries you would want to live in.

What does prosperity have to do with being moral?
B. Madoff was quite properous, at least until he was caught, while being quite immoral.

As for natural law, I don’t accept it as a moral system.

It appears to me that you accept no moral system.

Just because something is not natural does not make it immoral.

Proving that you don’t understand what Natural Law actually is.

And saying that without religion all we have is natural law isn’t really an argument either. Obviously humans live on a different moral plain than animals.

Not if you reject Natural Law.

You can say that this is God’s work, or the work of evolution, but obviously there is more to our actions than just pure natural instincts. So natural law is not a good moral system in my opinion.

Your opinion on the matter is quite suspect.

A loving homosexual relationship

A severe contradiction in terms. True love cannot go against our true nature.

can make someone very happy, and depriving them of that can make them feel alone for their whole life.

Many are happy in their immorality. What moral system equate “moral” with “happy”.

Just read some of the posts by people with SSA in this thread! You could make an argument that drugs and material things can make people happy, and those aren’t necessarily good things, but this is not true happiness. For true happiness, one needs love, and if that love comes from someone of the same sex does not really matter.

This is only true if “love” is correctly defined.

If we are going for what is natural and what is best for the species, a monogamous heterosexual relationship might not even be the best option. Considering the rate of infidelity and divorce it doesn’t really seem that natural at all…if it was natural, wouldn’t there be a lot less divorce?

What I am trying to say is that I think it is wrong what the church is doing to people like lcms (I think that is his name…the guy that posted earlier in the thread) and my heart goes out to him because of it. He is feeling true pain trying to cope with the teachings of the church and knowing that he will live a life of loneliness. But if the church is wrong, he will have caused himself true despair for no logical reason.

The only arguments I have read in this thread for the immorality of homosexuality have been ones that focused on religious authority (which I don’t accpet), ones that focused on natural law (which is a moral system that seems illogical and unsatisfactory to me) and ones that focused on the dangers of anal sex and promiscuous homosexuality (which really have nothing to do with morality…otherwise playing sports would be a sin because you can get seriously injured while doing it).

The reason why the great majority of non religious people don’t care about homosexuality or gay marriage is because there isn’t much of a logical argument against it.

It appears to me that those who claim this wouldn’t recognize a logical argument when they saw it.

 

[bingbang]

Again, you did not provide ANY statistics, nor your basis for “10 Best”, which means you gave me a personal, empty opinion.

Then prove it - provide us with a historical moral code not based on religion or natural law. We have saked for this time and again and you have not responded at all. So due to a complete lack of evidence, I feel safe to say that moral codes were first established by religions, and any offshoots from them are based in them. Without them, there is natural law - that’s all. We’ve argued from those two points, so you are asking us to argue upon that which doesn’t exist.

Again, your understanding of ‘natural’ isn’t really correct, and I’m having a hard time understanding the relevance of this paragraph to the argument. Not to mention it contradicts itself, because if we are a truly monogamous society, there would be no infidelity. And I’ll still even refute this - it would be the perfect option because you have the male and female parents creating their own offspring, and then raising them in an environment that teaches them gender roles, romance, how to love another person, etc.

I won’t comment on LCMS because you wouldn’t understand the necessity of suffering. C.S. Lewis’ “The Problem of Pain” is a great piece on why God allows us to suffer, and Christ recognizes and will glorify those who suffer in His name. But none of that means a thing to you, so why bother using it as argument.

The ‘only arguments’ have been based on religious authority, natural law, and personal and societal health issues. What else could there be to argue on. It is immoral (religious authority, which even though rejected by you, still exists, and is the basis for every moral code we’ve talked about), it is contrary to nature and the survival of the species (funny you mentioned evolution above, because I don’t think any animals ever evolved into purely homosexual, I wonder why…), and it poses significant health risks to individuals and the society (epidemics) as a whole.

All of these are complete, logically sound arguments against homosexuality being ‘right’, and I refrain to use ‘moral’ because that solely deals with moral codes (i.e. religion). Did you ever consider that non-religious people don’t care about these things because they didn’t like adhering to a strict moral code, and instead chose to give up religion while maintaining ‘pick and choose’ morals (not unlike some Cafeteria Catholics)? But at the end of the day, where did those morals come from? Religion.

In terms of a moral system, I like utilitarianism. I think it makes sense but there are a lot of problems with the it. I think you truly need good intentions, a good heart, and a rational mind for the system to really work. For instance, with utilitarianism you might be able to justify killing a career criminal because it would be for the greater good. Obviously this isn’t moral though.

As for moral systems always being based in religion, other than natural law, that is just a complete lie. Here is a link to just a few of the people that preached the golden rule before Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule#Ancient_Babylon

and this is a good starting point:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

Were all of these people religious? I can go through and start citing other non religious moral rules and codes if you would like, as I am sure there are lots. There were many Greek philosophers that had moral codes that had nothing to do with religion.

As for the “necessity of suffering” I don’t really buy it. Why are some people forced to suffer far more than others? And that argument falls flat on its face if one does not believe in God.

And it is just silly to think that people that left religion did so because they didn’t want to follow the code of ethics. Maybe they just didn’t believe in the religion. Maybe they found a complete lack of evidence.

It is odd. I started this thread as someone who believed in God, with some questions. I feel as though I am an agnostic at this point.

 

[bingbang]

Don’t be drawn into the trap that more “prosperous” contries are less “religious” therefore religion is bad for nations.

That is like a religious person saying “if you had more faith, you’d have more money.”

It doesn’t make any sense.

I didn’t say that religion was bad for a country and that wasn’t even the point of my argument. I was trying to say that religion is not needed for prosperity and happiness though.

On the other hand, a strong faith has been shown to increase happiness, but it is not a necessity for it.

 

[bingbang]

I don’t see what the problem is in criticizing a sinful relationship. It would seem to be a bigger problem if somebody was to affrm such a relationship.

The problem is that many people don’t see it as sinful. What do you think of the extreme protestants that think the pope is the anti Christ? They consider you to be extremely sinful for following the Church? What do you think of their arguments and stance? Homosexuals probably think of your view on homosexuality the same way…and to be honest the radical protestants probably have a similar amount of valid evidence for their argument against the church than you do against homosexuality.

 

[bingbang]

A severe contradiction in terms. True love cannot go against our true nature.

What do you know about homosexual love? How arrogant of you to dismiss someone’s love for another when you know absolutely nothing about it.

 

[Mumbles140]

In terms of a moral system, I like utilitarianism. I think it makes sense but there are a lot of problems with the it. I think you truly need good intentions, a good heart, and a rational mind for the system to really work. For instance, with utilitarianism you might be able to justify killing a career criminal because it would be for the greater good. Obviously this isn’t moral though.

As for moral systems always being based in religion, other than natural law, that is just a complete lie. Here is a link to just a few of the people that preached the golden rule before Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule#Ancient_Babylon

Were all of these people religious? I can go through and start citing other non religious moral rules and codes if you would like, as I am sure there are lots. There were many Greek philosophers that had moral codes that had nothing to do with religion.

As for the “necessity of suffering” I don’t really buy it. Why are some people forced to suffer far more than others? And that argument falls flat on its face if one does not believe in God.

And it is just silly to think that people that left religion did so because they didn’t want to follow the code of ethics. Maybe they just didn’t believe in the religion. Maybe they found a complete lack of evidence.

It is odd. I started this thread as someone who believed in God, with some questions. I feel as though I am an agnostic at this point.

If utilitarianism is a bad moral code, why would you propose it? Also, hedonism was rejected earlier in this threat but that is precisely what Bentham and Mill were - hedonists. The thing about utilitarianism is that it is a tool for making moral decisions, but it has to have a pre-existing moral code to determine its ‘calculus’, and I wonder what the source of that moral code would be. Plus, do you assume all of society to have good intentions, good hearts, and rational minds? Utilitarianism is not a moral code, it is a school of philosophy, and if you cannot see the difference, then there is no point in furthering the current direction of this debate.

And yes, the Greeks did have polytheistic religion, and they believed their deities to be vengeful, spiteful, and destructive if their wills and their rules were not followed. Just like the Egyptians and Babylonians had deities also…

And what answer would you then propose why some people suffer more than others? Please don’t dismiss entire sources unless you take the time to read them or do some research on them. Maybe it is so easy for you to reject other people’s opinions because you lack the desire/motivation to read literature on the matter, or even look for credible sources (i.e. don’t link to Wikipedia, find the original source and determined if the author is unbiased, like ballooned anti-religion estimates on an atheist blog).

Also, if you are agnostic, that means you still believe in God. Perhaps you may not believe in the Christian God now ,if that is what you meant, but your previous responses seem to indicate you never really believed in Christianity, whether you were baptized/attended church or not.

 

[bingbang]

If utilitarianism is a bad moral code, why would you propose it? Also, hedonism was rejected earlier in this threat but that is precisely what Bentham and Mill were - hedonists. The thing about utilitarianism is that it is a tool for making moral decisions, but it has to have a pre-existing moral code to determine its ‘calculus’, and I wonder what the source of that moral code would be. Plus, do you assume all of society to have good intentions, good hearts, and rational minds? Utilitarianism is not a moral code, it is a school of philosophy, and if you cannot see the difference, then there is no point in furthering the current direction of this debate.

And yes, the Greeks did have polytheistic religion, and they believed their deities to be vengeful, spiteful, and destructive if their wills and their rules were not followed. Just like the Egyptians and Babylonians had deities also…

And what answer would you then propose why some people suffer more than others? Please don’t dismiss entire sources unless you take the time to read them or do some research on them. Maybe it is so easy for you to reject other people’s opinions because you lack the desire/motivation to read literature on the matter, or even look for credible sources (i.e. don’t link to Wikipedia, find the original source and determined if the author is unbiased, like ballooned anti-religion estimates on an atheist blog).

Also, if you are agnostic, that means you still believe in God. Perhaps you may not believe in the Christian God now ,if that is what you meant, but your previous responses seem to indicate you never really believed in Christianity, whether you were baptized/attended church or not.

Being agnostic means I’m not sure if God exists. And if God does exist I am going to have to lean more towards Brahman than the Judeo Christian version. As for Greeks, Babylonians, and all other ancient cultures having religions, you are right…but that doesn’t mean that their religions were the basis for the moral codes they proposed.

 

[Mumbles140]

Being agnostic means I’m not sure if God exists. And if God does exist I am going to have to lean more towards Brahman than the Judeo Christian version. As for Greeks, Babylonians, and all other ancient cultures having religions, you are right…but that doesn’t mean that their religions were the basis for the moral codes they proposed.

Almost. Here is the definition of agnostic: dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

As you can see, it means you identify God (or some supernatural entity), but either choose not to specify beliefs about God or resign yourself to the belief that human understanding cannot grasp an understanding of God, so why bother trying.

As for the Greeks, Babylonians, etc, can you provide proof that the moral codes they established were not from religion? Remember that we already discussed how Hammurabi created a code of laws, part of which was based on certain moral tenets, but it itself was not a moral code.

Similarly, in The Republic, the ideal society is formulated using certain values, but their must be some moral code in place for words like “Honor” and “Courage” to have any meaning, and surely Plato did not come up with a moral code but rather build his school of philosophy off of one already in existence. The philosophers weren’t creating moral codes, they were merely pondering about matters in relation to the code.

 

[davidv]

What do you know about homosexual love?

This is an irrational absurdity. A contradiction in terms.

How arrogant of you to dismiss someone’s love for another when you know absolutely nothing about it.

Nice emotional outburst. Do you have anything rational to contribute?

Define love.

The ultimate definition of love is God. God defines what is moral and what is not.

Entering into immoral action is unloving, by definition.

 

[stephe1987]

People need to be careful if all they’re seeking is that “warm, fuzzy feeling.” Honestly, things like that can come back later and get you. There are many STDs out there (statistics show an increasing percentage of sexually active/multiple partners people ages 15-24 have them… the latest had 1/2 to 2/3, and it’s also increasing for seniors and people past child-bearing age). The newest health statistics show that a homosexual male is 44x more likely than a heterosexual male to have AIDS.

The point being, something that gives you short-term happiness might not be what’s best for you in the long run. Overcoming the addiction, whether it be alcohol, drugs, pornography, homosexual sex, etc., although difficult at first is better in the long run. You might have a rough year or two, but at least you won’t be dead from an overdose, STD, or have broken up your family because they couldn’t deal with your addiction any longer.

 

[Seeker2010]

There are many STDs out there (statistics show an increasing percentage of sexually active/multiple partners people ages 15-24 have them… the latest had 1/2 to 2/3, and it’s also increasing for seniors and people past child-bearing age).

What statistics would those be? According to the CDC, pretty much every STD has been declining for 20 to 30 years now. Despite the more open relationship we collectively have with our sexuality.

 

[TheQuestioner]

That may well be, but you’re missing something. Those things that society deems acceptable are. And rarely, if ever, go back to being unacceptable. There are notable exceptions to that rule, but most of the exceptions are something that causes actual, real harm to other humans. Slavery. The treatment of Jews by WW2 Germany.

And genocide (Armenian) after genocide (Assyrian) after genocide (Tanzanian) also seems to return. So no, things that are found to be unacceptable don’t rarely go back to being acceptable. They come back very often.

But that’s besides the point. You said “Those things that society deems acceptable are, and rarely, if ever, go back to being unacceptable”. What does that mean? Are you saying the rules society finds acceptable tend to stick? If that’s the case then wouldn’t those rules that tend to stick be a bit…immutable?

You brought up pedophilia, but define that.

The Ancient Greeks and Japanese had sex with young boys. The older men in the Greek societies believed that having sex with your student would pass on knowledge to him, and the Japanese Samurai used their students for sexual pleasure, because women were for having children. There, that’s what I meant when I said pedophilia.

Codswallop. You’re merely sweeping the facts under the rug. Moral standards change, and the fact that ankles were once scandalous and are now not, and that breasts are now and likely won’t be in the future proves my point. That you want to ignore that and make it about ‘objectification’ is irrelevant.

No, that’s not irrelevant. That’s the whole point. What do ankles back then and breasts now have in common? Why were both so scandalous during their time? Why is a woman’s hair to be kept hidden in the middle east? Why are some tribes in Africa OK with their women being topless when working, and others so against it? The common factor in all of these was human dignity. If you were to ask the men of these cultures they wouldn’t say “because hair is evil” or “breast should just be hidden” or “ankles are scandalous”. They would say “It is undignified for a woman to be showing her [insert body part] to entice other men, she should show some respect for her neighbors and cover up, there are children around”. That’s the key. When a woman dresses inappropriately she is being oggled at by men, not because they are showing her any actual love or real appreciation, but because they are merely appreciating one or two parts of her, thus, she is being objectified.

So what body part that can be shown over time can change, yes, but the general moral rule (self-respect and dignity) remains the same in many of these societies.

I would also opine that an enjoyable, interesting sex life is impossible without objectification.

That is honestly sad and I’m so sorry that you believe that.

If I am not turned on by my wife, and vice versa, as sex objects, we’re unlikely to have a very satisfying sex life. Of course, and I mean no disrespect but this is my honest opinion, anyone following strict Catholic rules vis-a-vis sexuality is unlikely to have a very satisfying sex life.

Again, pretty sad (i’m actually not offended, but really sad for you that you believe this). To see your wife for the beautiful woman she is does not constitute objectification. You recognize that she is a person, and you do not separate her beauty from her person-hood. A woman who is objectified has their looks and beauty separated from their person-hood. This is the case of a stripper or prostitute, or models and singers whom everyone knows are “weird” and feels is a really bad and inappropriate person, but still continue to follow and watch because of their looks.

And have you tried the “Catholic rules”? Go to the family living forums and ask the Catholics who use the “Catholic rules” whether or not they are happy, I’m sure many of them will say yes. Before you make the assumption that the “Catholic rules” will be bad, try them for a month or two.

I mean look at the topics on this very board.

Is it moral for post-menopausal women to have sex at all.

Is it moral for wives to dress in sexy lingerie, for their husbands, behind closed doors.

Codswallop.

Those threads are there because people have questions and are trying to follow the faith as close as possible and still have a good sex life. And if you looked at the answers to those threads you would find that most of them were

Yes

and

Yes

 

[TheQuestioner]

No, for the good involved in these examples far outweighs the bad.

To me, acts which can reasonably be expected to prevent greater harm are moral, though there’s certainly much room for debate on that point. For example, I’m in a runaway train, and if it’s not stopped, not only myself but everyone on the train will die. I can stop it by picking up the fat guy by the door and throwing him in front of the train, thus stopping it, but costing him his life. Is it moral to do so? I don’t know.

On the one hand, he’s gonna die anyway, and by doing so, I’m saving not only myself, but the entire train full of people. On the other, I’m trading his life for ours without his consent. So I don’t know.

True self-defense is moral, though it’s not covered by my simplistic rule. Though if everyone followed my rule, it would be unnecessary, and therefor moot.

In fact, I am a hedonist

hmmm from your posts here I would argue no, you are not a hedonist. Your moral system is based of beneficence, which means any acts that will lead to a person’s or society’s good (what that good is, that is for you to decided and tell me if you wish). This actually presents a problem for you, since you hold two contradictory moral codes (utility/beneficence and moral relativism). You can’t say “society changes moral codes” but have beneficence as your core moral principle. If beneficence is your core moral principle (even if you disagree and still assert it is hedonism) you still run into a snag with moral relativism.

But another point I would like to bring up is this. Since your moral code seems to be beneficence, it turns out that you and I in the end, have the same moral code, beneficence. The difference is what we may define as that “good” that our moral codes are supposed to bring lead to. My ultimate good is union with God. Yours, well, you haven’t defined that yet it seems.

For my experience with true hedonists is that the core principal is love

I’m quite sure it’s actually pleasure. From the Princeton wordnet hedonism is: the pursuit of pleasure as a matter of ethical principle. If you look at other definitions they are pretty much the same thing. Thus in hedonism, no, you don’t punish that child, because that child is only doing what gives it pleasure. You don’t give the child surgery, because that surgery is painful. And well…you get the rest.

The sexual issues being dealt with today do not (usually) cause harm to participants, and are extremely unlikely to cause harm to non-participants. Ergo, it’s unreasonable to call them immoral.

A person who dates a woman who slept with 30 people in the past is affected by the baggage of that person. Every man she dates with have to help her deal with feeling worthless and broken. This will take a toll on them too. A girl or boy who thinks that having sex is the ultimate expression of love, even outside of marriage, and then has the terrible experience of the one whom they slept with leaving them brings that hurt to him or her with the next person they date, and treats them bad accordingly.

Both of these cases are not technically wrong according to our society. A woman has the right to sleep with however many people she wants to and anyone can break up with anyone after sex, even if that would hurt the former person. Yet we can see what is horribly wrong with our current acceptance of unrestrained sexual behavior. Many people in our society mistakenly believe that what is legal is right, and what is illegal is wrong, but right and wrong go beyond legality.

 

[bingbang]

Almost. Here is the definition of agnostic: dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

As you can see, it means you identify God (or some supernatural entity), but either choose not to specify beliefs about God or resign yourself to the belief that human understanding cannot grasp an understanding of God, so why bother trying.

As for the Greeks, Babylonians, etc, can you provide proof that the moral codes they established were not from religion? Remember that we already discussed how Hammurabi created a code of laws, part of which was based on certain moral tenets, but it itself was not a moral code.

Similarly, in The Republic, the ideal society is formulated using certain values, but their must be some moral code in place for words like “Honor” and “Courage” to have any meaning, and surely Plato did not come up with a moral code but rather build his school of philosophy off of one already in existence. The philosophers weren’t creating moral codes, they were merely pondering about matters in relation to the code.

Your argument that I am using agnostic wrong is silly. The definition that you provided said:
*a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. *

I believe that the existence of God is unknowable, just as the definition says…which means I’m not sure if God does or does not exist.

And can I just verify your argument here…you are saying every moral code ever was either derived from or is based on religion?

 

[bingbang]

People need to be careful if all they’re seeking is that “warm, fuzzy feeling.” Honestly, things like that can come back later and get you. There are many STDs out there (statistics show an increasing percentage of sexually active/multiple partners people ages 15-24 have them… the latest had 1/2 to 2/3, and it’s also increasing for seniors and people past child-bearing age). The newest health statistics show that a homosexual male is 44x more likely than a heterosexual male to have AIDS.

The point being, something that gives you short-term happiness might not be what’s best for you in the long run. Overcoming the addiction, whether it be alcohol, drugs, pornography, homosexual sex, etc., although difficult at first is better in the long run. You might have a rough year or two, but at least you won’t be dead from an overdose, STD, or have broken up your family because they couldn’t deal with your addiction any longer.

I like how you lump homosexual sex into the same addiction categories as alcohol, drugs, and pornography. I could lump heterosexual sex between married couples into that category too I guess.

 

[Newbie2]

I just don’t accept church teachings or the Bible as authoritative. I have not seen a good argument against homosexuality that doesn’t involve one of these authorities.

Easy position to defend. “I don’t accept it”.

A loving homosexual relationship can make someone very happy, and depriving them of that can make them feel alone for their whole life. Just read some of the posts by people with SSA in this thread! You could make an argument that drugs and material things can make people happy, and those aren’t necessarily good things, but this is not true happiness. For true happiness, one needs love, and if that love comes from someone of the same sex does not really matter.

.

What do you know about homosexual love? How arrogant of you to dismiss someone’s love for another when you know absolutely nothing about it.

Just like you arrogantly dismiss the notion that drugs and material things cannot make people truly happy, no?

That’s the argument here, friend. You must have some basis on which to come to the conclusion that such is not true happiness. Catholic Christians have a basis for arguing that Homosexual “love” isn’t true happiness. Difference is that your basis is founded on your personal opinion alone, nothing else, while the Church’s opinion is based on solid theology.

I won’t pretend to speak for the Catholic Church, but absolute condemnations of homosexuality are indeed wrong. There are some Christians out there who are only against homosexuality becaues they believe it is wrong for two men to love each other intimately, whatever that entails. There are people that would be ok with a woman artificially simulating anal sex with her husband, and yet the thought of two guys being in love is too much. Finding out about this among other things has made me deeply skeptical of the rationality of some Christians. It all comes down to dogmatism and authoritarianism. Often times many of these people take their own sexuality and needs for granted, too. People have needs for emotional and physical intimacy . Telling gays or sexual minorities that celibacy is the only option, yet denying their needs as human beings, is cruel and nobody has the right to judge people who live as best they can.

At least to their credit Roman Catholics don’t officially see homosexual “inclinations” aren’t inherently immoral, because that’s essential what most Christians, even some lay Catholics, probably believe. If anything the physicalism of the Catholic sexual ethics, simplistic as it is, is less repulsive than the logic used by some non-Catholics.

I have several friends that are gay or transgendered and Christian. A transgendered friend is a baptist and a gentle soul, but is often the object of hostility and rejection if people find out about her. . Gays and transgendered people are first off human persons, its important to respect their dignity and not objectify them by fitting them into some kind of religious ideology without listening to their unique stories and perspectives. I’m afraid many religious people do that.

I think you’re confused about Catholic Church teachings on homosexuality.

1. There is no teaching that two men cannot be intimate with each other. I believe you are confused about what intimate means. Intimacy and sexual expression of that intimacy are two different things. It’s the sexual intimacy that is sinful.
2. Indeed, NOT telling gays and “sexual minorities” (whatever that means) about sinful behavior is cruel. We should let them stroll casually and confidently through the gates of hell? Nope. Part of our calling as Christians is to, in the most non-judgmental way possible, spread the Gospel message.
3. The Catholic Church first and foremost teaches that the human dignity of homosexual persons is to be upheld. However, do not be confused as to what this means. Upholding another’s dignity does not mean a “hands off” approach i.e. you just go ahead and do anything and I’ll keep quiet.

 

[Mumbles140]

Your argument that I am using agnostic wrong is silly. The definition that you provided said:
*a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. *

I believe that the existence of God is unknowable, just as the definition says…which means I’m not sure if God does or does not exist.

And can I just verify your argument here…you are saying every moral code ever was either derived from or is based on religion?

If you find my argument silly, that is clearly your right. I interpret the definition as recognizing some greater existence, but not desiring to define its nature because that is unknowable. But this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And my argument has been asking you for a moral code not somehow based upon religion. I never said they didn’t exist, but I want you to come up with a definite moral code not based upon religion. Now, realize that this means any moral code after the 10 Commandments (or more ancient Egyptian/Babylonian codes) must explain the reason for their moral tenets as separate from religion.

 

[bnbkaine]

I wonder if this thread had lost track…

From the original post: “So, how would you feel if you went to heaven and God said the church was wrong about homosexuality all along.”

I would say, “Oh well.”

I love all people. Or at least I really, really try to love them regardless of their actions, personality or sexual preference. However, I do not believe that people should act in whichever way they want. As a Catholic, we are called to love all people, but also to admonish sinners, so I would tell someone who feels attraction for a member of the same sex that I can’t begin to imagine what they are going through, but they can’t have sex.

If the Church is wrong, then it is wrong, but I am not going to be punished for my obedience to it.

But the Church isn’t wrong.

 

[bingbang]

If the Church is wrong, then it is wrong, but I am not going to be punished for my obedience to it.

You aren’t going to be punished, but homosexuals who choose chastity to adhere to church teachings would be punished.