Your comment is irrelevant to the point I was making.
Good; these are logical questions to ask. Hopefully, even at the risk of being called a “bigot” you would stand by your reasoned conclusions, rather than cave in to popular opinion.
And yet, for four thousand years, no human being on earth disagreed that marriage was a union of man and woman - in general, for the purpose of establishing a family - or in the case of marriages in old age, for providing for a widow and her already-born children - again with the purpose of providing a safe home for children in which to grow up.
The “unproven assumption” here is that it takes a male and a female to produce a family that is related to each other by DNA; that this is the most stable form of family life, and that it is the building block of civilization. A homosexual “family” can endure for only one generation at best. Heterosexual families can outlive empires, all the while passing down their cherished tradition and culture.
Like every other kind of sin, homosexuality is a choice made by human beings. God didn’t invent it.
Considering that we’re still against the use of artificial birth control, I’d have to say “Yes.”
Right - beginning with the legalization of birth control in 1930.
You’re right. That’s why the Catholic Church upholds the dignity of the role of women in marriage.
That’s like telling a mathematician: “Your mistake is believing that your discipline’s definition of a circle has any authority over people and institutions that don’t subscribe to math. I happen to believe that a circle can be a square.”
If someone called me a bigot because I stood by my reasoned conclusion that cats and dogs were not tables, I would probably suggest that they don’t know what the word “bigot” means.
Simply not true. SSMs were hardly widespread, but we do have records of them happening during the Ming Dynasty, during the early Roman Empire and elsewhere. So it wasn’t like it never occurred to anyone until about 10 years ago.
Well, this part is certainly an unproven assumption. And why can’t a gay couple adopt a child, raise it to adulthood, the kid’s straight, gets married and has kids of their own, and the whole passing down cherished traditions and culture happens anyway?
Homosexuality is not a choice. Having sex is a choice. Who you feel attracted to is something we can lay at the feet of the Almighty.
No. The definition of a circle is properly basic and self-evident. Your definition of marriage relies on many, many beliefs that you would term basic, but that are actually open to debate and that are probably wrong. For example, if God doesn’t exist, then the basis for your definition of marriage evaporates, and the necessity for maintaining your definition along with it.
Well, there is non-euclidean geometry, too…
So, you are telling us that Solomon was not the legitimate son of David, and that Solomon’s children were not legitimate either because both David and Solomon did not conform to your definition of marriage as one man and one woman?
You are aware, rossum, that the Church does not use the term “illegitimate”, as it applies to children, yes?
Definition of marriage is pretty basic.
Our definition of marriage can be presented without using God as a referent…
Does that mean logic and law can be separate? If the law defines a certain race of people as less than human does that make the definition in accord with truth?
Our religious definition is consistent with truth and the law. Your definition is plastic and inauthentic.
Because truth does not matter to you.
It is not a matter of Dogma. It is a matter of truth.
An innocent child is just that, innocent. Your ideology insists that we indoctrinate them into that new ideology of evil.
No, it wouldn’t. The ancient Greeks and Romans knew nothing of the Judeo-Christian God, but they still had one man, one woman [OMOW] marriage.
Imagine a colony of only atheists. Where would their truth come from? Who would decide it and how?Okay.
That depends on how you define marriage. David had a number of women, who may or may not have been wives. His first wife was Michal; his other possible wives were Ahinoam, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah and Bathsheba. Which of those were actually wives according to Tru-Marriage™ and which were merely pseudo-wives according to local custom I will leave up to you.
Since Solomon had 700 wives (1 Kings 11:3) I will not list them all here. Again, I leave it up to you to say which of those wives were truly wives, and which merely pseudo-wives.
Based on what/whose standard?
Like Ave Maria (Collier County, Fla) but in reverse. The scientific community would probably make up a sizable portion of it. When you have nothing guiding your action and that the natural law isn’t binding either, you all agree on the lowest common denominator: two consenting adults. Even that low standard would eventually be challenged as men in their thirties might want to be in a relationship with a 15 year-old boy or girl, because, you know, they love each other. Euthanasia, assisted suicide, abortion at any stage of the pregancy, gay “marriage”, no religion, the only absolute rule is to never mention God, who wouldn’t want to live there, right?
Therein lies the answer: wives. 700 takes polygamy to a whole new level, though. For a normal man, it would take 2-3 years to honour each one once.
This proves nothing. There were slaves who fought for the Confederacy in the Civil War. That must prove that the Union wasn’t trying to promote the agenda that slavery was wrong.
That’s not what it says. It is saying that things that are wrong require tolerance, not that all things that require tolerance are wrong. Christians in the USSR were not asking for tolerance; they were asking for basic human rights.
Even the statement, “what is wrong or right is subjective” is subjective?
Sorta like the CA gay judge who threw out Prop 8 based on his own personal definition of “marriage”?
There are no clear reasons as to why someone is homosexual. There are clear reasons for not enshrining gay sex into law. Prior to this, job one was overturning sodomy laws.