Merry Christmas and love from the Pope

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The pope and his predecessors have developed an extensive logical framework outlining the reasons for why things are or are not immoral. They draw on writings from many of the greatest philosophers of all time and essentially represent the culmination of thousands of years of work on ethics. You are simply ignorant of these foundations and, therefore, claim that they are basing them on bigotry.

No, it's actually not a logical framework at all - their very beliefs are not logical, but purely based upon faith.

It doesn't matter how they arrived at their framework as long as they harbor bigoted feelings.

You said, and I quote, "It doesn't matter if the Pope can hide behind a religious philosophy - in the end it is simply another set of ideas, just like many non-religious philosophies." Thus, you are claiming that the pope's ideas are "just like" many other sets of ideas, which is setting them all equal. The only alternative explanation is that you think all of these ideas are bad and that your set of ideas is superior, but you neither claimed nor supported that, so I made the opposing assumption. Please tell me why I'm wrong.

How amusing. That quote says nothing in regards to all ideas being equal. I simply said that religious beliefs are a set of ideas, just like many other non-religious philosophies are a set of ideas. I didn't say anything about all sets of ideas being equal - if you actually thought about what I said, then you would understand that I'm actually saying that the Pope's ideas are inferior to other sets of ideas.

You're wrong because you've managed to assume incorrectly. I implore you to now sit down and think about my post. Please don't make illogical assumptions.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
After reading this a half dozen times I think we are having two different conversations. I will try to understand where you are coming from, so forgive me if I don't get it at first.

I understand the rules surrounding sex, and where the rules come from isn't exactly my point. My point is that a separate rule exists for homosexuals. And that if one were to factor love into the equation, then this rule regarding homosexuality (that homosexual sex is a sin) creates a contradiction. The evidence to support homosexuality occuring naturally in our world continues to grow. I find myself believing that homosexuality is natural, as is man's capacity to love. With that said, the rule wherein homosexual acts are sinful contradicts a person's ability to love, if that person happens to be homosexual.

Separate rules don't exist for homosexuals - they are expected to live by exactly the same rules as straight people. If you say, "Well, that's not really true because homosexual people can't get married and, therefore, can never have sex," I can simply respond with the fact that the Church calls on priests to do the exact same thing - never have sex.

I think it more likely to be that homosexual activity required a specific address because of the churches need to control such behavior in a time where religion governed society moreso than today. I think it is more likely an archaic rule.

I disagree. What is moral or immoral is time invariant, though our perception of right and wrong can and will change with time. If the logic for why something was wrong before was sound, then it always will be sound unless some new empiricism comes up that deflates one of the axioms of the logical argument. Since Aquinas didn't invoke any cause for homosexuality in his arguments, any arguments pertaining to its origins are irrelevant to his logic.

It seems as though you are saying that the Church must address the ill-state of homosexuality now because of the hyper environment over the issue. And that if it were any other issue (ie fornication, or premarital sex) then the church would be speaking out over that issue just the same.

I ctan agree with that. But I believe the church has an opportunity to pave a way for the inclusion of the homosexual community. If Homosexual activity is sinful, then all that means to me is those homosexuals join the rest of us as sinners. The church doesn't condone these other sins (greed, promescuity, etc etc) either but you don't hear the Pope calling these things a blight on the world. IMHO Its a step in the wrong direction.

I don't think anyone has any doubts regarding the Church's teachings over fornication, nor is the legalization of fornication a current issue that needs to be addressed in the Church's teachings. No one is calling on any government to legalize theft or murder, two things that we can pretty much all agree are morally wrong. Thus, the pope isn't going to waste his breath teaching why they are wrong. His job is to teach what people need to know when he feels they need to know it. Thus, El Papa decided to speak on something a little more relevant. You'll note that in his message (and in previous papal addresses), they have explicitly stated that intolerance of homosexuals is unacceptable - those statements just don't get any press.

Here is an example I found of the argument that I THINK you are putting forth:

Bishop Soto:

?Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all,? Bishop Soto said. ?For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression." link

What he is saying...well it is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! Homosexual activity is a sin!! it says so in the bible!!

BUT

he says nothing about homosexuals in love. But Homosexuals CAN and DO love, they find love just like the rest of us.

what about them? Its OK just don't engage in homo-sex?? OH really!?!? :roll:

It is ok - just don't have sex. Period. It's the same thing that I'm called upon to do as a single straight man. I know it's hard to imagine in today's society, but it really is possible - just wander over to ATOT and you can find tens of thousands of good little boys who abide by this rule.

Notice how the Bishop makes the distinction between "sexual relations" and "married love" The church sees two different things. THAT is the crux of the issue. The church feels that what homosexuals find isn't love, it is a mimicry of love. It is "Sexual Relations." Now aint that a bitch!?! I have a problem with that. I don't think anyone outside of one's own heart and mind can say what love is. I certainly can't tell you that the love you have with your wife is a mimicry of love, that you don't feel love.

And imho that is wrong. We are all created in the image of God, we all have the capacity to love, call it what ever the heck you want...but homosexuals can engage in "married love" just as much as heterosexuals can. And that makes their sexual activity the EXACT same thing as an act of LOVE...regardless of the church rules or how the church chooses to define what is love, and what is a mimicry of love. I really have a problem with the church defining such rules over sex and love. Talk about Big Brother coming into your bedroom, there is no bigger brother than Jesus Christ himself!!

That's not really what he is saying. To understand what he is saying, you need to understand the Church's idea of what "Sacramental" love is. It's too late for me to go into great detail tonight, but suffice it to say that the Church teaches that "love" becomes "Sacramental Love" after marriage, where marriage is the sacrament. Heterosexual sexual relations outside of the context of marriage are viewed in the exact same way. As someone getting married in the Church in a couple weeks (eep), I could write a book about this at this point, but there are probably a few other things that should be higher on the priority list right now...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
A couple of points here:

1.) The notion that the purpose of marriage is to create and shelter children is as antiquated as the rest of the church's beliefs. Moreover, it's an opinion. Anyone could come along and claim that the purpose of marriage is to pair-bond two humans together for no higher purpose than love (as I just did), and assuming we all went away believing that, he or she would have just as much authority on the matter. Thus, one's opinion on the purpose of marriage, including the church's opinion on the matter, cannot form the rational or logical basis for anything, let alone an argument in favor of denying legal recognition to an entire class of people.

So, after ducking a series of requests for a logical justification for moral relativism, you return to the thread with new claims that morality is relative. I'll ask again: can you logically justify moral relativism? If you cannot, then it's not just an opinion, not all moralities are equal, and everything else you have said falls on its face.

Christians seem to like to think they're above animals, but then proceed to boil down love, relationships and sex to their most animalistic basis. They say, "sex is for the creation of children, not for enjoyment." Which is ironic, given how they stress we are not animals, and yet is that not how animals treat sex? Purely for reproduction?

That's not what the Church is saying at all. It is saying that it is for reproduction AND enjoyment. And animals do not engage in sex simply for reproduction.

2.) The church opposes gay marriage. Perhaps they didn't come out and say it specifically in this Christmas address by the pope, however that's their stated position. Opposing gay marriage = discriminating and witholding rights and/or legal recognition from a specific group of people = bigotry.

Until you can demonstrate why morality is a matter of opinion, then anyone stating a moral position cannot be a bigot, since any claim of bigotry requires that we are dealing in matters of opinion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Certainly but you will understand, I hope, that I will be looking at bigotry from the point of view of somebody who has understood his own from the inside out, and that my understanding of the subject, therefore, will be real understanding and not dictionary compliance or an appeal to some nonsense normative concoction. I will tell you what bigotry really is. As in everything, I figured this out for myself, without the help of experts, philosophers, linguists, and other folk who look at things more superficially, of course in my opinion based, as always on my enlightened understanding, the one you mock and make fun of, hehe. It seems I am as indifferent to your opinion as I am to the opinion of any other of the so called wise.

I set out some long time back, to prove there is absolute truth and that life has meaning. I was a bigot, because I assumed that such a truth existed and, of course, that it would supply such meaning. These ideas were everything I held sacred.

But, unfortunately for me, I have an irresistible desire to be honest and that ruined everything. I read everything I could find that purported to hold truth and found only lies, unproven assumptions at the heart of every belief or opinion. All the great thinkers were lying to themselves. Your Aquinas was among them. They all based their ideas on some assumption that has no grounding, always exactly what they start out to prove.

It is ironic that, in dying to your ego, you have developed an even more inflated ego - one that allows you to cast aside the entirety of accumulated human intellect, language, and reason. It seems you have gone so far on your journey that you have returned to where you started.

For example, Aquinas sets up the natural as something of value, then speaks as though homosexuality, deviating from the norm, isn't natural and according to the Spaghetti Monster's plan. Hehe, what a dunce. He assumes a god and he assumes that a less frequent sexual orientation isn't natural. We have no proof of the existence of God so that eliminates God's plan and less common is still totally natural. What is is what is natural. But when you have God, you naturally have good and evil. But neither of them exist. There can't be any evil since there is only God, you know. Well I guess you don't.

You obviously never read Aquinas or you would know the ridiculousness of what you just said. Thus, I feel safe in saying that you're a liar when you claim to have read everything there is to read in an effort to find truth. You found the truth you were looking for, just as you claim these others did before you. You don't really know what they found because you never read the book. Cliffs Notes don't count.

You create evil, I'll remind you, when you create the notion that it exists. Evil is memory associated with pain.

So you can take Western philosophy and Western religion and throw them in the garbage. They are all lies all figments of duality thinking, unless, of course, you actually know what it means to be forgiven, and I certainly don't mean know as with your mind, but fully in your own heart.

I was a bigot. I believed there is a truth and the disappointment my honesty brought me ended my life. I died of a broken heart. I know utter darkness and what it means to feel pain. I know what it means to give up utterly beaten, to lose everything you ever held dear. I know what it means to die to purpose and meaning, to have no hope.

But why oh why did I suffer. Its because I clung to meaning, I carried the assumption one needed it. Well for me, Zen helped fix that. In a deep state of meditation I woke up from a dream. In a meaningless world, meaning is meaningless too. There is only one absolute truth and it is the state of total being in the here and now. Everything you ever longed for has always been there. There is nothing to add to pure being joy.

So a bigot, my dear Sir, is somebody who hold unexamined assumptions, ideas and thoughts, dead memories of the past, some one who feels need, somebody who clings to ideas about the absolute, somebody who believes in good and evil. Where there is the feeling of need, there is the motivation to justify, to strive and do battle when everything is already absolutely perfect as it is.

Your beliefs cannot be justified. Therefore, everyone is a bigot but you. At least, in your twisted world of hedonism where words and actions have meaning only in a relative sense. That is an easy way to try to win an argument, not because your position has merit, but because no one can argue against you when the meaning of what you say simply shifts with the wind. Smoke and mirrors do not hold up to inspection, but that is all you offer.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
No, it's actually not a logical framework at all - their very beliefs are not logical, but purely based upon faith.

It doesn't matter how they arrived at their framework as long as they harbor bigoted feelings.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Extensive research? A metaphysical epiphany? You have no idea where these "beliefs" came from, yet you feel free to criticize them as irrational. That should indicate to you who is being irrational here. I could fill an entire library with philosophical treatises explaining the social teachings of the Church, yet I feel safe in guessing that you've never even heard of any of the books it would contain, much less have read any of them, less still that you had refuted any of their assertions. Thus, the only one obstinately sticking to his opinions and prejudices here is you, bigot.

How amusing. That quote says nothing in regards to all ideas being equal. I simply said that religious beliefs are a set of ideas, just like many other non-religious philosophies are a set of ideas. I didn't say anything about all sets of ideas being equal - if you actually thought about what I said, then you would understand that I'm actually saying that the Pope's ideas are inferior to other sets of ideas.

No one familiar with the English language could interpret what you said to mean that. Thus, I can only assume that your problems in this thread have arisen solely from your inability to read, write, and/or understand written English. Given that, there's very little point in discussing anything with you.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Extensive research? A metaphysical epiphany? You have no idea where these "beliefs" came from, yet you feel free to criticize them as irrational. That should indicate to you who is being irrational here. I could fill an entire library with philosophical treatises explaining the social teachings of the Church, yet I feel safe in guessing that you've never even heard of any of the books it would contain, much less have read any of them, less still that you had refuted any of their assertions. Thus, the only one obstinately sticking to his opinions and prejudices here is you, bigot.

You seem fairly emotional in regards to this topic and it is routinely resulting in your poor arguments, incorrect and wild assumptions, and the like. We'll have to agree to disagree that such philosophies with no factual or scientific backing are not logical.

No one familiar with the English language could interpret what you said to mean that. Thus, I can only assume that your problems in this thread have arisen solely from your inability to read, write, and/or understand written English. Given that, there's very little point in discussing anything with you.

Yes, quite emotional. I understand that it can be embarrassing when you make a blatantly incorrect assumption.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what your philosophical thinking is as long as it results in bigotry. The Pope cannot use a 'logical framework' as immunity from accusations of bigotry. It doesn't matter where his philosophical framework comes from or how it is constructed. In the end, a bigoted belief is a bigoted belief.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Extensive research? A metaphysical epiphany? You have no idea where these "beliefs" came from, yet you feel free to criticize them as irrational. That should indicate to you who is being irrational here. I could fill an entire library with philosophical treatises explaining the social teachings of the Church, yet I feel safe in guessing that you've never even heard of any of the books it would contain, much less have read any of them, less still that you had refuted any of their assertions. Thus, the only one obstinately sticking to his opinions and prejudices here is you, bigot.

You seem fairly emotional in regards to this topic and it is routinely resulting in your poor arguments, incorrect and wild assumptions, and the like. We'll have to agree to disagree that such philosophies with no factual or scientific backing are not logical.

No one familiar with the English language could interpret what you said to mean that. Thus, I can only assume that your problems in this thread have arisen solely from your inability to read, write, and/or understand written English. Given that, there's very little point in discussing anything with you.

Yes, quite emotional. I understand that it can be embarrassing when you make a blatantly incorrect assumption.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what your philosophical thinking is as long as it results in bigotry. The Pope cannot use a 'logical framework' as immunity from accusations of bigotry. It doesn't matter where his philosophical framework comes from or how it is constructed. In the end, a bigoted belief is a bigoted belief.

And so we see your retreat to accusation of bigotry. CW has provided a solid logic undescoring the beliefs and moral foundation of the Church. He is not emotional but providing rational arguments against moral relativism.

So on the contrary, it is your retreat away from argument to accusation and the circular logic that shifts as needed that fails here.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
You seem fairly emotional in regards to this topic and it is routinely resulting in your poor arguments, incorrect and wild assumptions, and the like. We'll have to agree to disagree that such philosophies with no factual or scientific backing are not logical.

No, we won't. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. You cannot simply dismiss logic and say, "We'll have to agree to disagree" that logic is a valid method for making arguments - logic is THE ONLY method for making valid arguments in philosophy. You are simply ignorant of what logic means, which is sad.

Yes, quite emotional. I understand that it can be embarrassing when you make a blatantly incorrect assumption.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what your philosophical thinking is as long as it results in bigotry. The Pope cannot use a 'logical framework' as immunity from accusations of bigotry. It doesn't matter where his philosophical framework comes from or how it is constructed. In the end, a bigoted belief is a bigoted belief.

You don't know what bigotry means. You obviously don't know what "emotional" means. You obviously don't know what "logic" means. Thus, I feel pretty comfortable in calling you an ignoramus and neglecting anything you might have to say in the future in this thread.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Separate rules don't exist for homosexuals - they are expected to live by exactly the same rules as straight people. If you say, "Well, that's not really true because homosexual people can't get married and, therefore, can never have sex," I can simply respond with the fact that the Church calls on priests to do the exact same thing - never have sex.

The priesthood is a bad example. Priests volunteer for their celebacy. Separate rules don't exist for homosexuals? So can a homosexual marry? Would God bless their marraige? Would their marriage be consider "sacramental love" ?

I disagree. What is moral or immoral is time invariant, though our perception of right and wrong can and will change with time. If the logic for why something was wrong before was sound, then it always will be sound unless some new empiricism comes up that deflates one of the axioms of the logical argument. Since Aquinas didn't invoke any cause for homosexuality in his arguments, any arguments pertaining to its origins are irrelevant to his logic.

First thing would be to define what it is that needs to be catagorized as either moral or immoral. Murder is easy. So is stealing. But what do we call immoral about homosexuality? Simply being homosexual? Or the act of homosexual sex? We are not talking about relativism, because I am sure that if we nail down what it is that we are talking about, whether it is a homosexual person or if it is the act of homosexual sex, or marrital/premarrital sex then we can agree then what would be immoral or moral right?

I do not consider homosexuals immoral. I simply do not understand enough about BEING homosexual. That is like me trying to understand why I am heterosexual...I just AM. I cannot condemn this as being immoral. I do not understand. Is it natural? is it learned? is it a condition? an affliction? or is it a choice? Nor do I consider the act of sex immoral if two people are in love. Again because I understand so little about love. I do not know what it is that makes you love your wife, and the same goes for everyone. I consider homosexual activity outside of marriage to be about as moral as any sexual activity outside of marriage, ie not good....but not terribly bad either

I think what I am arguing here is that the logic for something being wrong (homosexual marriage) was never terribly sound to begin with. Just because at some point in our civilized path we chose to limit rights for a minority group doesnt mean that it was logical to do so. What is logical about limiting marriage again? Homsexuals are just as capable of living a life as taught by Jesus Christ. Homosexuals are also capable of having the same value systems that Jesus Christ taught. Homosexuals can share in Gods values. God also values homosexuals. Again, created in his image.

I don't think anyone has any doubts regarding the Church's teachings over fornication, nor is the legalization of fornication a current issue that needs to be addressed in the Church's teachings. No one is calling on any government to legalize theft or murder, two things that we can pretty much all agree are morally wrong. Thus, the pope isn't going to waste his breath teaching why they are wrong. His job is to teach what people need to know when he feels they need to know it. Thus, El Papa decided to speak on something a little more relevant. You'll note that in his message (and in previous papal addresses), they have explicitly stated that intolerance of homosexuals is unacceptable - those statements just don't get any press.

well then. I see a contradiction.

It is ok - just don't have sex. Period. It's the same thing that I'm called upon to do as a single straight man. I know it's hard to imagine in today's society, but it really is possible - just wander over to ATOT and you can find tens of thousands of good little boys who abide by this rule.

I think you are still talking about sex outside of marriage. I am talking about marriage. I don't think it is ok to condemn a loving couple because they are homosexual. And by condemning I mean I don't think it is ok to not recognize their love. Just like everything else in this world I think we ought to give homosexuals the benefit of the doubt...that they do in fact love each other and that they can maintain that love as well as any other. A homosexual man is capable of trusting and loving in Jesus Christ.

but we can condemn fornicators all we want. They are tools.

That's not really what he is saying. To understand what he is saying, you need to understand the Church's idea of what "Sacramental" love is. It's too late for me to go into great detail tonight, but suffice it to say that the Church teaches that "love" becomes "Sacramental Love" after marriage, where marriage is the sacrament. Heterosexual sexual relations outside of the context of marriage are viewed in the exact same way. As someone getting married in the Church in a couple weeks (eep), I could write a book about this at this point, but there are probably a few other things that should be higher on the priority list right now...

What you are doing is putting up this "gate"...its like an entrance fee. Marriage and "Sacramental Love" are on one side of the gate and we are all trying to get thru to that side of the gate.

Those that fornicate, not allowed (until pennence)

Those that sin = not allowed (until pennence)

Those that are baptized and seek pennence thru the sacrament of confession, and those that love and go through the (marriage) counseling...they can have "Sacramental love" THEY can be married! Congrats Cyclowizard.

I find nothing wrong with that. Its the catholic belief system, you should enjoy it and be proud of your accomplishments.

But for the state, the same rules don't apply. The "bar" is set much lower....for lack of a better term.
You argue from the perspective of someone knowledgeable in the Sacrament of Marriage. I can respect that. But not all of the marriages that take place in the State of California, or this country, must abide by those rules.

But getting back to my argument. Those gates, when it comes to the sin of homosexuality, I can't reconcile how illogical it is to believe that a homosexual is condemned because she/he practices homosexual love with his/her companion. And it is in the act of sexual activity between them that condemns them. How else are they "allowed" to express their love?

What is it that condemns a loving homosexual couple from being unable to attain the sacrament of marriage? Are they not practicing the love that Jesus wants for all of us? The same love that we all try to show each other that God has shown all of us? How can "married love" be different between a heterosex and a homosex couple?

I see the catholic argument for traditional marriage to be a very simple one. Again:

1. Union
2. Procreation

The Catholic can argue that since a homosexual couple can't fulfill both of these requirements then technically they can't get married.

Fine. It makes sense. It is logical (based on belief) and it is clear.

So, catholics shouldn't marry gay couples. Problem solved.

People need to ask themselves these questions. Why are religious establishments against the "devaluation" of marriage? What happens when the church loses its value?

Another Bishop's argument for traditional marriage:

Conclusion

Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.

Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.

The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected.

So marriage originated from God, and the church is not associated with its (marriage) origins as a basic human and social institution! Its not up to the church or the state, its up to GOD!! but since we are the church, and the church deals with God, we will help you in figuring all this stuff out!!

Thanks for clearing that up Bishop Boland. Don't shoot the messenger right Bishop?? :laugh:


disclaimer: If anyone thinks I misrepresented anything in this argument then you can certainly point it out to your hearts content...but you have better back it up with specifics!! And sorry for the long post. I really like this argument though.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
The priesthood is a bad example. Priests volunteer for their celebacy. Separate rules don't exist for homosexuals? So can a homosexual marry? Would God bless their marraige? Would their marriage be consider "sacramental love" ?

The point is that the Church calls on a whole lot of people to completely abstain from any sexual activity. It is hardly singling out homosexuals for this honor. Homosexuals cannot marry, nor can heterosexual people under certain circumstances.

First thing would be to define what it is that needs to be catagorized as either moral or immoral. Murder is easy. So is stealing. But what do we call immoral about homosexuality? Simply being homosexual? Or the act of homosexual sex? We are not talking about relativism, because I am sure that if we nail down what it is that we are talking about, whether it is a homosexual person or if it is the act of homosexual sex, or marrital/premarrital sex then we can agree then what would be immoral or moral right?

I do not consider homosexuals immoral. I simply do not understand enough about BEING homosexual. That is like me trying to understand why I am heterosexual...I just AM. I cannot condemn this as being immoral. I do not understand. Is it natural? is it learned? is it a condition? an affliction? or is it a choice? Nor do I consider the act of sex immoral if two people are in love. Again because I understand so little about love. I do not know what it is that makes you love your wife, and the same goes for everyone. I consider homosexual activity outside of marriage to be about as moral as any sexual activity outside of marriage, ie not good....but not terribly bad either

I think what I am arguing here is that the logic for something being wrong (homosexual marriage) was never terribly sound to begin with. Just because at some point in our civilized path we chose to limit rights for a minority group doesnt mean that it was logical to do so. What is logical about limiting marriage again? Homsexuals are just as capable of living a life as taught by Jesus Christ. Homosexuals are also capable of having the same value systems that Jesus Christ taught. Homosexuals can share in Gods values. God also values homosexuals. Again, created in his image.

People in and of themselves can never be immoral - only actions are right or wrong. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality just as there is nothing wrong with being black, white, Hispanic, male, or female. There is (according to the Church) something wrong with sex outside of marriage, and even sex within marriage under some conditions.

I think you are still talking about sex outside of marriage. I am talking about marriage. I don't think it is ok to condemn a loving couple because they are homosexual. And by condemning I mean I don't think it is ok to not recognize their love. Just like everything else in this world I think we ought to give homosexuals the benefit of the doubt...that they do in fact love each other and that they can maintain that love as well as any other. A homosexual man is capable of trusting and loving in Jesus Christ.

but we can condemn fornicators all we want. They are tools.

No one is condemning anyone for what they are - only what they do. This is just a red herring. As for recognizing their love, I don't see that the Church has any problem with relationships between homosexuals. They do have a problem with sexual activity between homosexuals, unmarried heterosexuals, a man and his hand, and so on. Thus, until you address this concept, you're just beating around the bush.

What you are doing is putting up this "gate"...its like an entrance fee. Marriage and "Sacramental Love" are on one side of the gate and we are all trying to get thru to that side of the gate.

Those that fornicate, not allowed (until pennence)

Those that sin = not allowed (until pennence)

Those that are baptized and seek pennence thru the sacrament of confession, and those that love and go through the (marriage) counseling...they can have "Sacramental love" THEY can be married! Congrats Cyclowizard.

The "gate" is like security at the airport (I hate to use this analogy, because security at the airport is a complete joke, but bear with me). The idea for putting the gate in place is to prevent those who should not be inside from gaining admission, in this case, to sexual acts. The boy with the monkey on his shoulder isn't allowed inside, nor is the creepy guy with the blowup doll. I don't think anyone here will disagree with the idea that sexuality should have strings attached. This is why people hate pedophiles, despite pedophilia being perfectly acceptable and even encouraged for the vast majority of history: we now have an understanding of why it is wrong. The Church sets the price of admission according to its own theories, which you are free to challenge, but to suggest that it let everyone in for free is obviously ridiculous.

I find nothing wrong with that. Its the catholic belief system, you should enjoy it and be proud of your accomplishments.

But for the state, the same rules don't apply. The "bar" is set much lower....for lack of a better term.
You argue from the perspective of someone knowledgeable in the Sacrament of Marriage. I can respect that. But not all of the marriages that take place in the State of California, or this country, must abide by those rules.

But right and wrong are invariant of time and place. To argue against this is to support moral relativism and is really simply pandering to political correctness at the expense of logic. If something is right or wrong, it should be enforced as such by the State since the State is a moral agent.

But getting back to my argument. Those gates, when it comes to the sin of homosexuality, I can't reconcile how illogical it is to believe that a homosexual is condemned because she/he practices homosexual love with his/her companion. And it is in the act of sexual activity between them that condemns them. How else are they "allowed" to express their love?

In the same ways as any other unmarried couple. I'm not going to go into the details, but it seems the hurdle that you're struggling to get over is the idea that people can love each other but not engage in sexual activity. I can only say that it is difficult but possible. The Church recognizes this difficulty and attempts to help us through the process with reconciliation, counseling, and many other levels of assistance: no one is condemned based on his actions. Rather, he is condemned by himself because he does not try to do what is right. This invokes the idea of the informed conscience, which I'm not going to attempt to discuss right now.

I'll get back to the rest of your post in a while...

edit: added emphasis on trying to do what is right

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Extensive research? A metaphysical epiphany? You have no idea where these "beliefs" came from, yet you feel free to criticize them as irrational. That should indicate to you who is being irrational here. I could fill an entire library with philosophical treatises explaining the social teachings of the Church, yet I feel safe in guessing that you've never even heard of any of the books it would contain, much less have read any of them, less still that you had refuted any of their assertions. Thus, the only one obstinately sticking to his opinions and prejudices here is you, bigot.

You seem fairly emotional in regards to this topic and it is routinely resulting in your poor arguments, incorrect and wild assumptions, and the like. We'll have to agree to disagree that such philosophies with no factual or scientific backing are not logical.

No one familiar with the English language could interpret what you said to mean that. Thus, I can only assume that your problems in this thread have arisen solely from your inability to read, write, and/or understand written English. Given that, there's very little point in discussing anything with you.

Yes, quite emotional. I understand that it can be embarrassing when you make a blatantly incorrect assumption.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what your philosophical thinking is as long as it results in bigotry. The Pope cannot use a 'logical framework' as immunity from accusations of bigotry. It doesn't matter where his philosophical framework comes from or how it is constructed. In the end, a bigoted belief is a bigoted belief.

And so we see your retreat to accusation of bigotry. CW has provided a solid logic undescoring the beliefs and moral foundation of the Church. He is not emotional but providing rational arguments against moral relativism.

So on the contrary, it is your retreat away from argument to accusation and the circular logic that shifts as needed that fails here.

The beliefs and moral foundation of the Church is simply a set of ideas, which is not special or unique to many other sets of ideas. The Pope cannot use his ideology as a shield to make him immune from accusations of bigotry. If his ideology makes him despise homosexuals or any other type of such group, then he is simply a bigot.

Certain religions in the past have had racist beliefs, but the fact that they were religious beliefs does not mean that they were not bigoted.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No, we won't. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. You cannot simply dismiss logic and say, "We'll have to agree to disagree" that logic is a valid method for making arguments - logic is THE ONLY method for making valid arguments in philosophy. You are simply ignorant of what logic means, which is sad.

You are simply incapable of reading a small post. You're now arguing a different point.

Yes, it's quite obvious that you are too emotional at this point.

You don't know what bigotry means. You obviously don't know what "emotional" means. You obviously don't know what "logic" means. Thus, I feel pretty comfortable in calling you an ignoramus and neglecting anything you might have to say in the future in this thread.

I think that you need to get your emotions in check. Look at how rattled you have become. Honestly, it is a little amusing.

 

[Moonbeam]

To CW:

Are you a liar? Do you remember your post?:

Since you don't know what bigotry is, the rest of your tripe can be neglected. Please, tell me what bigotry is and how it applies to this situation. Then I'll be happy to answer any of your questions and address your concerns.

Do you remember the questions I asked?:

"But I want you to make your own case instead of appealing to the thinking of others. Tell me why the church should oppose homosexual marriage. I don't want to hear that they should because they have a doctrine natural or otherwise, that homosexuality is bad, I want you to tell me why it is. I want you to tell me why it's OK for heterosexual lovers to have sex but not people with same sex attraction. I want to know why they should be deprived of satisfying this feeling, why one of the great joys of life they should not have. I want to know what gives you the arrogance to say they should not. I am telling you you can't any more than Aquinas could, because there is no reason that isn't pure bigotry."

And of course you didn't even though you said you would. Let's look deeper into your game:

CW: It is ironic that, in dying to your ego, you have developed an even more inflated ego - one that allows you to cast aside the entirety of accumulated human intellect, language, and reason. It seems you have gone so far on your journey that you have returned to where you started.

M: I know that I know nothing, that you know nothing, and that nobody else knows anything either. What you call ego, I call not having any. You think you know and I know I do not. It that's ego than I am far more egotistical than you.

CW: You obviously never read Aquinas or you would know the ridiculousness of what you just said. Thus, I feel safe in saying that you're a liar when you claim to have read everything there is to read in an effort to find truth. You found the truth you were looking for, just as you claim these others did before you. You don't really know what they found because you never read the book. Cliffs Notes don't count.

M: What counts is that I can smell the fact that Aquinas knows something, that he believes in truth. That's all I need to know he thinks he knows something. That, of course can't be, because I know that nobody knows anything. He grounds out on unexamined assumptions, like all bigots do.

CW: Your beliefs cannot be justified. Therefore, everyone is a bigot but you. At least, in your twisted world of hedonism where words and actions have meaning only in a relative sense. That is an easy way to try to win an argument, not because your position has merit, but because no one can argue against you when the meaning of what you say simply shifts with the wind. Smoke and mirrors do not hold up to inspection, but that is all you offer.

M: You poor thing. These things you see you see because of your delusion, because you cling. I have no beliefs and there is nothing to justify. You are the one who has that problem. You are the one who can't justify. Mine is the truth that appears when one realizes the futility of trying to justify, that there is no truth that can be. And you use the term hedonism because it is what you would be without YOUR justification, just a savage animal stripped of his superficial ethics, the beast you seek to tame. I AM that animal you fear, the Monster of the Id, the Beast Within, the Wild One, the Mad Man, a little old gnome who has raged and raged and cried so many tears. I have surrendered to the madness, fallen into the pit, and am free. I live in your darkness. I am smoke and mirrors because the eyes you hunt me with are the same eyes with which I hunt you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Moonbeam: "I know that nobody knows anything".

Self contradictory statement...Lie #1.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Moonbeam: "I know that nobody knows anything".

Self contradictory statement...Lie #1.

M FAILS. :laugh:

It was only a matter of time before the circular logic bit him in the a$$.

Anyway, this thread is long past useful as no one will move off their positions.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
A couple of points here:

1.) The notion that the purpose of marriage is to create and shelter children is as antiquated as the rest of the church's beliefs. Moreover, it's an opinion. Anyone could come along and claim that the purpose of marriage is to pair-bond two humans together for no higher purpose than love (as I just did), and assuming we all went away believing that, he or she would have just as much authority on the matter. Thus, one's opinion on the purpose of marriage, including the church's opinion on the matter, cannot form the rational or logical basis for anything, let alone an argument in favor of denying legal recognition to an entire class of people.

So, after ducking a series of requests for a logical justification for moral relativism, you return to the thread with new claims that morality is relative. I'll ask again: can you logically justify moral relativism? If you cannot, then it's not just an opinion, not all moralities are equal, and everything else you have said falls on its face.

Christians seem to like to think they're above animals, but then proceed to boil down love, relationships and sex to their most animalistic basis. They say, "sex is for the creation of children, not for enjoyment." Which is ironic, given how they stress we are not animals, and yet is that not how animals treat sex? Purely for reproduction?

That's not what the Church is saying at all. It is saying that it is for reproduction AND enjoyment. And animals do not engage in sex simply for reproduction.

2.) The church opposes gay marriage. Perhaps they didn't come out and say it specifically in this Christmas address by the pope, however that's their stated position. Opposing gay marriage = discriminating and witholding rights and/or legal recognition from a specific group of people = bigotry.

Until you can demonstrate why morality is a matter of opinion, then anyone stating a moral position cannot be a bigot, since any claim of bigotry requires that we are dealing in matters of opinion.

In my opinion, morality is self-evident. Murder is wrong (and thereby a "sin" if you wish to call it such) because it deprives someone of their life and it's easy to see why doing so is wrong. It's difficult, probably impossible, to argue against this logic. Stealing is also wrong, because it deprives someone of their hard-earned possessions without compensation. Again, self-evident. Something like consensual homosexual sex is not wrong, because there's no logical reason for it to be wrong. No one is being forced to do anything against their will, no one is a victim in any conceivable way, and therefore it's not self-evident why such a thing would be considered wrong, and therefore it's not a sin.

My take on the church's stance, and by extension, the stance of Christians (and other religious types) everywhere, is that they start with the premise that homosexuality is wrong, because they find it repugnant, or because they're literalists and believe every word of their holy texts, and then try to back-load some pseudo-logical nonsense to try and justify their bigotry.

Your posts quoting various philosophers notwithstanding, you've yet to offer up some logical reason in your own words, why you feel it's a sin. I don't give two craps what Aquinas thinks, I want to know what YOU think.

From what I can tell, you've managed to duck this request over the course of this entire thread.

 

[dahunan]

Organized Religion = Control! .. nothing else...
Get it out of our government.. out of our laws... out of our policies.. etc

It has no right to push itself on those who don't want it oppressing them..

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Organized Religion = Control! .. nothing else...
Get it out of our government.. out of our laws... out of our policies.. etc

It has no right to push itself on those who don't want it oppressing them..

And you have the right to push yourself on those who don't want you oppressing them?

 

[gingermeggs]

I went to Rome this year (whilst the pope was in town at home)...... the only place I didn't go was the Vatican.
Watched Roma-give Chelsea a hiding 3-1 in the eufa cup at a 800year taverna call the black falcon, fantastic pizzas and plenty of pints!
My greatest hatred of the HRCC is the non-proliferation of condoms in catholic parts of Africa!
The roman catholic church will be nothing until it has a true roman pope again, they topped the last one.
The beginning of wisdom is knowing the fear of god!- its a paradox, once you realise, you don't need organised religion anymore, its for those that haven't yet made it past that point of mental enlightenment- but religion from a cultural perspective is kinda nice...it gives roles to people they can easily slip into.
They fiddle the kiddies while they point the finger at gays! I'll never step into a catholic church again.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Organized Religion = Control! .. nothing else...
Get it out of our government.. out of our laws... out of our policies.. etc

It has no right to push itself on those who don't want it oppressing them..

So if I understand you correctly, religion is oppressive, but government is not. Government is always good the more the better.

IMO, you are mistaken. The more government, the greater danger of tyranny. Except for the radical Islamists, I don't see any Christian or Jew forcibly making people adhere to their religion and if they do not, killing them. You and I are free to walk away anytime with no repercussions.

Neither you nor I are free to ignore our government when it decides to mandate something. And the more you allow our government control over our lives, the less control you will have over yours.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Moonbeam: "I know that nobody knows anything".

Self contradictory statement...Lie #1.

M FAILS. :laugh:

It was only a matter of time before the circular logic bit him in the a$$.

Anyway, this thread is long past useful as no one will move off their positions.

Right, you keep thinking that. Logic is a circle you're in, your own self defined mental trap. To not know is to collapse paradox. The lover dies in his Lover's arms.

You are wise and know this thread is useless, but a fool like me does not. In this thread is only what you can carry away. For you, because you are already full of what you know, it wasn't much.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
blah blah blah

You do not understand that you assume that what you feel is truth and what others know is a lie. This assumption is the downfall of your entire philosophy. Since you can't tell me what bigotry means, you cannot see that what I am saying is obviously true. You are simply a bigot in defense of your own ideas which exclude all other ideas by default. Since you are a bigot, you have never considered this possibility. You do not know what my ideas are, yet you condemn them out of hand because you're sure that they are different from your own. The irony is delicious.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
In my opinion, morality is self-evident. Murder is wrong (and thereby a "sin" if you wish to call it such) because it deprives someone of their life and it's easy to see why doing so is wrong. It's difficult, probably impossible, to argue against this logic. Stealing is also wrong, because it deprives someone of their hard-earned possessions without compensation. Again, self-evident.

"Murder is wrong" is easily contradicted. If I have a pickax and am swinging it at your head, but you have a shotgun aimed at my head, is it wrong for you to pull the trigger? If I come home one night and you are raping my wife and children with your gang of friends and I have a machine gun, should I use it? Likewise, if I am starving and on the brink of death, is it wrong for me to steal a loaf of bread from a wealthy merchant? If things were as cut-and-dry as you thought they were, then people wouldn't have exhausted millions of man-years studying ethics for the last 2500+ years. If you read the ethics literature, you would find that there are entire books containing examples of when killing another human being might be logically acceptable. You would also find that Aquinas was one of the key figures in this area of philosophy and ethics, using the same foundation (natural law) that he utilizes in formulating his philosophy on sexual activity.

Something like consensual homosexual sex is not wrong, because there's no logical reason for it to be wrong. No one is being forced to do anything against their will, no one is a victim in any conceivable way, and therefore it's not self-evident why such a thing would be considered wrong, and therefore it's not a sin.

As I said above, you simply assume that there is no logical reasoning because you have not considered the alternative. You have not researched the subject. You have not thought it out for yourself. You knew what conclusion you wanted to reach because it's politically correct and went with it, then formulated your theory to support your conclusion. This is commonly known as "begging the question" and is a well known logical error.

My take on the church's stance, and by extension, the stance of Christians (and other religious types) everywhere, is that they start with the premise that homosexuality is wrong, because they find it repugnant, or because they're literalists and believe every word of their holy texts, and then try to back-load some pseudo-logical nonsense to try and justify their bigotry.

This simply demonstrates your own ignorance. If you knew anything about the Church, you would know beyond any doubt that it is not fundamentalist (i.e. it does not teach a literal interpretation of the Bible). If you knew anything about philosophy, you would know about the logical foundations surrounding natural law. Since you are obviously completely unaware of these fundamental facts, I submit that, in this case, you are the bigot and are simply projecting your ignorance on Catholics because that's easier than doing a little reading and understanding where any of these positions are coming from. Further, your ignorance is demonstrable upon a cursory reading of Church documents which any literate person could find online. Thus, I can only assume that you remain ignorant by choice, which I find absolutely reprehensible, especially from someone who feigns indignation at the thought that someone else might be willfully bigoted on this very subject.

Your posts quoting various philosophers notwithstanding, you've yet to offer up some logical reason in your own words, why you feel it's a sin. I don't give two craps what Aquinas thinks, I want to know what YOU think.

From what I can tell, you've managed to duck this request over the course of this entire thread.

I never said I feel it's a sin. This thread isn't about me at all - it's about the Church's teachings. This is simply another one of your red herrings because you know that you are ignorant of every point you have raised in this thread and would be overjoyed if I took your bait and shifted the attention to myself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
In my opinion, morality is self-evident. Murder is wrong (and thereby a "sin" if you wish to call it such) because it deprives someone of their life and it's easy to see why doing so is wrong. It's difficult, probably impossible, to argue against this logic. Stealing is also wrong, because it deprives someone of their hard-earned possessions without compensation. Again, self-evident.

"Murder is wrong" is easily contradicted. If I have a pickax and am swinging it at your head, but you have a shotgun aimed at my head, is it wrong for you to pull the trigger? If I come home one night and you are raping my wife and children with your gang of friends and I have a machine gun, should I use it? Likewise, if I am starving and on the brink of death, is it wrong for me to steal a loaf of bread from a wealthy merchant? If things were as cut-and-dry as you thought they were, then people wouldn't have exhausted millions of man-years studying ethics for the last 2500+ years. If you read the ethics literature, you would find that there are entire books containing examples of when killing another human being might be logically acceptable. You would also find that Aquinas was one of the key figures in this area of philosophy and ethics, using the same foundation (natural law) that he utilizes in formulating his philosophy on sexual activity.
.

Well let's stop right there.

If you swing a pick-axe at my head and I have a weapon, I can use it against you in self-defense. So it's no longer murder, it's self-defense, or at worst, man-slaughter depending on the exact circumstances. Our very own legal system recognizes this distinction.

But yes, of course there are shades of gray with regards to what is an acceptable reaction and what is not. Every circumstance is different and warrants examination.

As for the rest of your points, yes perhaps I should further research the ethical foundations of the church's stances, yet somehow I don't believe it would change my position one iota.

Furthermore, you really need to gain a better understanding of what bigotry is, because you continue to use it incorrectly. I'm not a bigot, because I'm not advocating any sort of intolerance towards the Catholic Church. I'm not advocating any sort of discriminatory practices against them. In fact, I feel like they have every right to believe what they wish, worship as they wish, etc., etc.

It's not bigoted to disagree with the church, to point out bigotry when I observe it, or to find fault with or disagree with you for that matter. Stop hiding behind your continued misuse of the word and behind your faith in the Catholic Church. Neither grants you any immunity to criticism.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well let's stop right there.

If you swing a pick-axe at my head and I have a weapon, I can use it against you in self-defense. So it's no longer murder, it's self-defense, or at worst, man-slaughter depending on the exact circumstances. Our very own legal system recognizes this distinction.

But yes, of course there are shades of gray with regards to what is an acceptable reaction and what is not. Every circumstance is different and warrants examination.

So you admit that there are circumstances under which killing a person is legitimate and some where it is not. How did the law arrive at these differences? Through the application of logic via ethical theories, coupled with a lot of politics which inevitably displace some of the logic behind them.

As for the rest of your points, yes perhaps I should further research the ethical foundations of the church's stances, yet somehow I don't believe it would change my position one iota.

Furthermore, you really need to gain a better understanding of what bigotry is, because you continue to use it incorrectly. I'm not a bigot, because I'm not advocating any sort of intolerance towards the Catholic Church. I'm not advocating any sort of discriminatory practices against them. In fact, I feel like they have every right to believe what they wish, worship as they wish, etc., etc.

It's not bigoted to disagree with the church, to point out bigotry when I observe it, or to find fault with or disagree with you for that matter. Stop hiding behind your continued misuse of the word and behind your faith in the Catholic Church. Neither grants you any immunity to criticism.

The bolded paragraph is exactly why you're a bigot. Since you seem to have forgotten what a bigot really is, and are attempting to assert your own definition without ever rendering it, I'll refresh your memory with Merriam-Webster's definition:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

You just admitted, in the bolded paragraph, that you are obstinately devoted to your opinions. Therefore, by your own admission, you are a bigot. I therefore suggest checking up on what words really mean before trying to apply your own meaning as a weapon to expose someone else's supposed ignorance. I'll also note that you conveniently truncated my previous post to exclude where I had already addressed this issue, from which I can only surmise that you're engaged in intentional intellectual dishonesty or are just too lazy to bother to read what I'm saying before forming your responses. Either way, I don't see much benefit in continuing this with you.