Why are there "Gay Pride Parades" ?

[Winterwolf00]

What does that have to do with your forgetting that you already commented/acknowledged that the Catholic Church doesn’t distill its doctrines from the pages of a book?

Because you’re not the only one I talk to? And because there are delays?
I don’t know why you expect such things to always be remembered.

 

[PRmerger]

Based on my moral code yes.

But for someone else rape could be moral?

 

[PRmerger]

Because you’re not the only one I talk to? And because there are delays?
I don’t know why you expect such things to always be remembered.

I guess because I do remember something that I just read. And responded to.

Not to mention, what does your access to the internet being inconsistent have to do with your ability to remember what you just read?

 

[Winterwolf00]

But for someone else rape could be moral?

Yes and for someone else genocide could be moral.
As could honor killings, slavery, female genital mutilation, killing of heretics, crusades, suicide bombings, and bombing Planned Parenthood.

If these acts were not considered moral by the people who committed them then why in the world would they do them?

 

[Winterwolf00]

I guess because I do remember something that I just read. And responded to.

Not to mention, what does your access to the internet being inconsistent have to do with your ability to remember what you just read?

Wasn’t I done talking to you because you refuse to accept logic in a discussion?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes and for someone else genocide could be moral.
As could honor killings, slavery, female genital mutilation, killing of heretics, crusades, suicide bombings, and bombing Planned Parenthood.

If these acts were not considered moral by the people who committed them then why in the world would they do them?

I am not asking if people consider them moral, Winterwolf.

I am asking if they actually ARE moral.

Yes?

Things ARE moral, like genocide and rape, if the actor believes them to be?

Is that your position?

 

[PRmerger]

Wasn’t I done talking to you because you refuse to accept logic in a discussion?

I’m having way too much fun.

You are starting to see the light…

I wish you wouldn’t leave. :bighanky:

 

[Winterwolf00]

I am not asking if people consider them moral, Winterwolf.

I am asking if they actually ARE moral.

Yes?

Things ARE moral, like genocide and rape, if the actor believes them to be?

Is that your position?

You are suggesting that there is some objective morality outside of human thought?
Seeing as how morality seems to ORIGINATE from sentient beings that notion is absurd.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I’m having way too much fun.

You are starting to see the light…

I wish you wouldn’t leave. :bighanky:

Oh, oh god, you think that you are actually convincing me of anything?

Oh god I need a minute!

 

[PRmerger]

You are suggesting that there is some objective morality outside of human thought?
Seeing as how morality seems to ORIGINATE from sentient beings that notion is absurd.

Can you first answer my question, and then I will answer yours.

Is something actually MORAL (right/good/ok to do) if the actor CONSIDERS it to be moral?

That is, is rape ACTUALLY moral because the rapists considers it to be a moral act?

Yes or no?

 

[Winterwolf00]

Can you first answer my question, and then I will answer yours.

Is something actually MORAL (right/good/ok to do) if the actor CONSIDERS them to be moral.

That is, is rape ACTUALLY moral because the rapists considers it to be a moral act?

Yes or no?

I believe I just did answer your question, your question is based on an absurd presupposition that there is such a thing as ‘ACTUALLY moral’ outside human context.
That’s my answer. Your question makes no sense.

You might not like that my answer falls outside your false-dichotomy but there it is.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, oh god, you think that you are actually convincing me of anything?

Oh god I need a minute!

Whenever a person threatens to leave the discussion rather than answering the questions, well, that is definitely a sign that he is seeing the light.

He just needs time to formulate a response, because he actually thinks, “Umm…right. I really can’t refute that point. It’s true. So either I need to conform my views to truth, or I can leave the room to try to think of a way to refute it. Even if I can’t right now.”

 

[Winterwolf00]

Whenever a person threatens to leave the discussion rather than answering the questions, well, that is definitely a sign that he is seeing the light.

He just needs time to formulate a response, because he actually thinks, “Umm…right. I really can’t refute that point. It’s true. So either I need to conform my views to truth, or I can leave the room to try to think of a way to refute it. Even if I can’t right now.”

This time it’s more like I’m giving myself a headache from all the face-palming.
I mean you can assert that you’ve ‘won’ all you want but you are still the pigeon on the chess board.

 

[inocente]

Sure they were.

Better examples would be:

Lips were not designed for walking.

Lips were not designed for smelling that fabulous turkey. (Let’s not re-define what “smelling” is, ok?)

Lips were not designed for viewing Hugh Jackman (Let’s not re-define what “viewing” is).

Lips were not designed for hearing Michael Buble. (Let’s not re-define what “hearing” is).

Lips were not designed for cutting toenails.

Lips were not designed for secreting insulin.

Lips were not designed for filtering the blood for waste.

(this is fun! so many ideas!)

Lips were not designed for storing battery acid.

Lips were not designed for…

Yes you can list no end of logical and physical impossibilities, you’ve found yourself a new hobby.

Only trouble is, now your argument obviously doesn’t apply to homosexuals.

2 out of ten. Must try harder.

 

[inocente]

Actually, the two towns had a reputation for being sodomites. And anyone who can read would know that.

Moreover, when Jesus was looking for something terrible to compare rejecting his words with, the most terrible thing he could think of was the sin that brought destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Everybody except you seems to know what that sin was.

So what is your authority for determining that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality rather than sodomy? Actually, it was both. The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with Lot’s visitors. There is hardly anything more inhospitable than that.

I see. So according to you, Jesus blurts out the names of the two towns from Genesis 19 because the disciples, and Matthew’s readers, will instantly know he’s on about consenting men in private.

Even though that’s never mentioned in Gen 19. Not once. Never.

Even though Gen 19 is about violent gang-rape by “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old”.

Even though Lot offers his two virgin daughters so that all those men can “do what you like with them” in public throughout the night.

Even though the traumatized daughters then get their dad drunk and have incest with him.

But Jesus isn’t on about any of that, according to you, Jesus is fine with all that. He’s on about something never even mentioned. According to you.

No wonder you always forget to say what education you’ve had for reading scripture.

*But it seems that no amount of verses cited will persuade you that sodomy is condemned, not just as an act of inhospitality, but as an unnatural sexual perversion. So we have yet another proof in your posts that some Protestants only cite the Bible to serve their own purposes, and ignore those parts they don’t like … or vilify them when cited as “verse mining.”

Just not your day, is it? *

You’re repeating yourself. I seem to remember that I first used “just not your day” when you claimed that you are being faithful to scripture. So I quoted Lev 20, a clear and direct command from God himself:

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.

Do you follow that command? Do you vote for executing consenting adults? You forgot to say.

Pick ‘n’ mix. That’s all you do, criticize others when you do exactly the same, only you never give any justification.

No wonder so many American Catholics are in favor of gay marriage. Discernment, I think it’s called.

 

[ricmat]

I believe I just did answer your question, your question is based on an absurd presupposition that there is such a thing as ‘ACTUALLY moral’ outside human context.
That’s my answer. Your question makes no sense.

You might not like that my answer falls outside your false-dichotomy but there it is.

Since humans will give you different, often directly opposed answers to what is moral, can morality actually exist within ONLY human context?

This means that there NEEDS to be a context outside human context to determine what is right and wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

But eventually the story reaches a point where any reasonable person would, in their opinion, consider it most definitely a rape.

It is, in everyones opinion, rape. I’ll repeat that: It is, in everyone’s opinion…rape. Not a fact sans facts. but our collective opinion.

To be fair my access to internet isn’t exactly consistent.
But yes we can agree that rape is wrong.

I want to lay out the pieces here regarding the discussion of moral facts vs opinions.

Fact: an infant pees and poops and sleeps.
Opinion: I hate it when an infant poops.

Fact: this is an incorrect use of the contraction “it’s”: Poetry declares it’s pomposity with each and every stanza of iambic pentameter.
Opinion: I wish grammar didn’t matter.

Fact: Anna Wintour is the editor of Vogue.
Opinion: Anna Wintour looks harsh and mean.

All of the facts are TRUE STATEMENTS, regardless of the reader’s opinion. We can know them to be true INDEPENDENT of what anyone else professes.

Opinions are neither right or wrong. They’re just someone’s point of view. Like how one views fashion or salty vs spicy foods.

Where do you think this statement belongs: Rape is wrong.

Fact? Or Opinion?

 

[PRmerger]

Only trouble is, now your argument obviously doesn’t apply to homosexuals.

Of course it does.

Homosexual sex is a DISORDERED use of sex.

Just like using one’s lips to try to smell if there were a natural gas leak in the room would be DISORDERED.

Just like eating one’s food and then throwing it up is…an eating DISORDER.

Just like someone storing batteries in one’s stomach is DISORDERED.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533227/

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

I certainly believe in an objective truth that should guide our morality. Where I take issue with many is in the discernment of that truth. Some things are very easy for us to identify as immoral (i.e. rape is wrong), but other things are more ambiguous. I think homosexuality lies in this “ambiguous” category and is not so “obvious” as so many are suggesting. I am very familiar with the natural law argument promoted by the Church, but the problem is I don’t find it very convincing. To me, it seems overly simplistic.

My husband and I have talked a lot about this issue, because we need to decide what we are going to teach our children. We are part of the younger generation and we have both known and have friends who are gay, which admittedly does change your perspective.

We are both very supportive of gay marriage and voted against Prop 8. One thing I don’t ever hear Catholics ever take into account when discussing this issue is the importance of free exercise of the will. We are talking of civil marriages after all.

 

[PRmerger]

I certainly believe in an objective truth that should guide our morality. Where I take issue with many is in the discernment of that truth. Some things are very easy for us to identify as I am very familiar with the natural law argument promoted by the Church, but the problem is I don’t find it very convincing. To me, it seems overly simplistic.

My husband and I have talked a lot about this issue, because we need to decide what we are going to teach our children. We are part of the younger generation and we have both known and have friends who are gay, which admittedly does change your perspective.

We are both very supportive of gay marriage and voted against Prop 8. One thing I don’t ever hear Catholics ever take into account when discussing this issue is the importance of free exercise of the will. We are talking of civil marriages after all.

Firstly, welcome to the CAFs!

Now, to your points: the Church’s natural law argument is simple, but not simplistic.

And it’s quite true that having friends who are gay influences one’s POV. However, it is an emotional response, but not a moral response.

Finally, what do you mean by “when discussing this issue is the importance of free exercise of the will”? Do you mean that we all have free will so we ought to be able to make choices about our actions?