Catholics are not making things up as we go along. A right is a right or it’s not a right. It’s like being a little bit pregnant. You either push for gay marriage or you don’t. That is the topic. Arguments for vagueness do not erase the fact that the goal is gay marriage in every state.
Oh, my. Homosexuality is either sexual attraction to members of the same-sex, or homosexual behaviour. No where within that definition is there the requirement of trying to promote some kind of agenda. There are open homosexuals that oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption, like one particular journalist working for the Daily Mail. Homosexuality is not a religion as it has no dogma, and is a sexual practice or a psychological state of being. Beliefs amongst homosexuals vary. Not all homosexuals are open about it.
Well, that’s silly. Can’t say much more than that. I’ve never heard this idea that the only things that require tolerance are wrong. In Soviet Russia, I’m sure Christians would have wanted their religion to be tolerated, does that mean Christianity is wrong? I’ve always thought of tolerance as allowing things you may not agree with, or allowing people to express views or opinions that oppose your own, not allowing things that are wrong. Besides, what is wrong or right is subjective. I’m pretty sure F. Turek has made up a definition here. It’s certainly not one I’ve ever heard.
That is where Catholics disagree with you Right and wrong are objective realities.Catholics are the ultimate realists here(in the proper sense of that word- the intellect grasping not giving value to objective reality) i.e. Slavery was always wrong even when it was legal. Nor can moral realities cannot be changed simply by changing the Law. Just as(by analogy) legislation which states that everything which has four legs is a table would not suddenly change the reality of cats and dogs. The legislation which states that homosexual unions are marriages does not make them marriages.
It wouldn’t to Catholics, or a certain percentage of Christians, perhaps. But for the rest of us, it would.
Okay.
Right. That’s a belief you’re welcome to, fine. Where does this objective morality come from? I’m almost certainly sure I know, but I’d like some clarification. I’m asking this out of curiosity, not because I wish to debate it. There are plenty of people that would disagree with you on this claim, though, and since you’re most likely believing this on faith, it doesn’t really hold any ground when used against issues you find immoral. You’d basically just be saying “It’s wrong because I believe it’s wrong!”Really? If the government and the popular media were telling you that cats and dogs were kinds of tables, and that it were an issue of human rights to believe so, then you would believe them?
Our faith’s definition of marriage is based in the reality of the situation. Just as believing that dogs and cats are not tables would be a belief rooted in reality, though proclaimed only by “religious fanatics” in a world where government and media were propogating the idea that they were tables, and providing some kind of human rights justification for saying so. (ie: it may be obvious that they are not, but you would be a big meany and obviously intolerant if you were to say so.)
It’s true that the basis of Christian morality is the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.Okay.
I can’t speak for the other poster, but I don’t get my morality from the government or the media. After all, morality is what is right or wrong, not what is legal or illegal. I have my own views on morality, that I come to conclude myself, but other people may have different views. We can discuss our reasoning and decide whether it’s justified. If you’re going to conclude that something is wrong because you belief it’s wrong, or because a god told you, it’s very hard to discuss.
Unlike physical objects, marriage is a ceremony that can be changed at our will. People generally ask me what the definition of marriage is, and that, of course, would depend where you live. In Canada, it would be a legal or religious ceremony between two people. In some US states it would be a legal or religious ceremony between a man and a woman. In Uganda it would be a legal or religious (possibly just religious) ceremony between a man and any number of women.
No. It’s based on an analysis of the effects of such an action. I consider some effects to be worse than others. The situation must also be considered, and the people participating and their views towards such actions. Are they consenting, for example. And there is, of course, natural human empathy which always helps. It’s got nothing to do with the popular media, and it’s certainly got nothing to do with convenience.
That’s a good start. The next step would be to analyze the long term results of various different kinds of behaviour. What actually happens, and is it healthy in the long term? (Could a 25 year old man survive into old age if he were being sodomized every night for the rest of his life, or is the anus not designed for that?)
Don’t confuse the marriage with the wedding ceremony. The marriage (if it takes place at all) takes place after the wedding ceremony. Not all (or even most) wedding ceremonies result in a marriage.
It’s hard to say. It doesn’t seem to me that there’s any kind of objective research being done on that kind of stuff. Though, yes, the anus probably wouldn’t take too kindly to that. Still not sure about life spans, though. I’m no doctor.
Oh. Okay. A legal or religious document or contract, then?
I know such things as Civil Marriage exist.Interesting and common misconception. My belief is grounded in philosophical realism first and foremost just as yours appears to be grounded in philosophical relativism. It is only after the reality of the situation kicks in that faith is build on this foundation.Okay.
At the risk of taking this silly comparison seriously - if the government and popular media tried to tell me that cats and dogs were kinds of tables, I’d start asking questions like, ‘On what basis are we to consider cats and dogs to be kinds of tables?’ I mean, I own a few tables. They’re all in some sense, different, but also share at least a few things in common, though hardly anything in common with cats and dogs. But let’s grant that they all have “legs” - is that similarity enough to start categorizing cats and dogs as types of tables? In my submission, the answer is no, and that further, no particular interests are served by changing the definition. Also, if we did decide that cats and dogs were types of tables, what would that mean for elephants and ponies? On what basis do we say that cats and dogs are tables, but elephants and ponies are not?
No, your faith’s definition of marriage is based on an unproven assumption (actually several of them). That there is a God, that this God cares how you live your life, that this God holds you responsible for how other people live their lives, that he cares especially how we all behave when we’re naked, and that practicing homosexual activities is a moral evil (even though God himself is responsible for homosexuality). And that it all follows that marriage between two members of the same sex is impossible (by definition), and prohibited (in every other non-Catholic forum or institution). From this, you project a worldview that you have termed ‘Reality.’
No and why should the Church change?These are God’s laws.They can’t be changed to suit societal whims!
Your questions do not matter. All that matters is that the law says what it says. That is the logic of the homosexual lobby. Not unlike claiming abortion is not murder even though it clearly is.
Your explanation goes nowhere as the law dictates the definition by your reasoning .
Any innocent child knows same sex acts are wrong. It is only after our consciences are seared that we decide wrong is right,
Has the Church opposed the incremental changes leading up to the logical conclusion we are looking at now? This is not a radical change which is occurring, it is the logical progression in a century of incremental changes to the definition of marriage. You can’t eliminate the distinctions of gender role in marriage, and then turn around and say that gender matters in marriage. It is logically inconsistent.
The law dictates the legal definition. Your religion may continue to dictate the religious definition. This fight is about the legal definition. Your problem is that you insist that your religious definition must dictate the legal definition.
An innocent child knows nothing about sex, because in view of your theology, for a child to learn about sex is to lose their innocence, by definition.
That is demonstrably incorrect. It is an assumption. Homosexuality was classified as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 when radical gay activists inside and outside the APA decided, on their own, to change things.