coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
We are humans, Marine... we can either deal with our imperfections, or hide from them. In my mind, the morals set by religions aren't much more solid than those set by common will. We have made mistakes in the past in our moral judgments; you mention slavery. The Catholic Church condoned slavery; the Church also orchestrated the Crusades and the Inquisition. The Bible speaks of stoning people for sinning, that eating shellfish is a sin, and more. But clearly the Church no longer favors these and other "morals" that were held at one point or another; its morality is as mutable as that of mankind in general. The Presbyterian Church (I think?) just ordained a **** minister (I have not been following the story, so I'm not sure where that's gone since then), a major shift in that denomination's doctrine.
The fact is that a religion's god doesn't set the morals of his/her followers; those officials who run the institution do. The Pope sets Catholic dogma, and Christians the world over trust him to do so. But he is still human, and therefore fallible. I'm not religious, but if I were, I promise you that my opinion on the matter would be to have faith in the idea, not in the institution around it.
Again going back to my sociology class... one of the things we talked about in our discussion of institutions was how they relate to humanity as a whole. The lesson learned was that most institutions are a subset of mankind; sometimes representative, sometimes not; but the more important point was that institutions, because of their structure and ingrained traditions, are much slower to accept change and change themselves. But they *do* change.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Catholic Church condoned slavery<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When did it do that? As early as 1462, Pius II called it a "great crime". <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the Church also orchestrated the Crusades and the Inquisition<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How does this constitute a change of morals? Only the means by which heresy is fought have changed. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible speaks of stoning people for sinning<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Chemistry now allows us to administer the death penalty by more humane means, but again, the morals have not changed. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->that eating shellfish is a sin<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's unclean for Jews, but not sinful. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Presbyterian Church<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Episcopalian. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a major shift in that denomination's doctrine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They have no doctrine. They make their rules up as they go along. That's the point of Protestantism. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Pope sets Catholic dogma,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The dogma is <i>interpretation</i> of existing law. New laws have never been made, and won't be made. The function of the Magisterium is judicial, not legislative. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But he is still human, and therefore fallible<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Most of the time, yes, but when teaching theology <i>ex cathedra</i>, the Holy Ghost is thought to prevent him from erring, as promised. How else would you explain that even the greatest scoundrels and criminals, when they were Pope, did not teach a single heresy? <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The lesson learned was that most institutions are a subset of mankind; sometimes representative, sometimes not; but the more important point was that institutions, because of their structure and ingrained traditions, are much slower to accept change and change themselves. But they *do* change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The institutions change, the interpretation changes, but the natural law doesn't. It's like the Constitution: the Supreme Court re-interprets it according to circumstances, but the actual law never changes. Still, the Constitution would be a worthless mass of letters if there weren't an institution with final authority to explain what the law <i>means</i> in any given context.
Is homosexuality wrong? In my personal *NON-religious* set of morals, Homosexuality is not wrong. It is not something that I want people practicing in public but I think that what they do in their home is their affair. When I say practicing in public I mean the actual sexual act, not the little signs of affection such as holding hands or quick-kisses. My best friend is homosexual and i have NO issues with the fact that he fancies men. It is his life, it is his choice.
The rule of society should be (IMHO) that all lifestyles should be allowed so long as they are not harmful. If a man wants to have sex with another man, it is their choice, not the choice of the society. If they want to enjoy the same LEGAL privileges as a Hetero married couple they should be allowed to.
IMHO, Civil Unions (Go Vermont! Smartest thing done in the nation since making computers & Nukes) should be handled exactly like a Marriage. It would not be the Religious/Legal marriage that Hetero's have but rather a Union of two people, so that they may enjoy the same benefits of married hetero's. 49(48)/50 have no Civil Union laws and some even nullify it but the homosexual people deserve the same legal treatment as hetero couples.
Then again marriage isn't the sole property of the Christian faith. Homosexuals have just as much a right as heterosexuals to refer to their their union as marriage.
They may refer to it as a marriage, but in the eyes of the Gov't it is only a union. Not a marriage, as the Gov't has recently had to start decide on what to call it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Sep 8 2003, 05:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Sep 8 2003, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a major shift in that denomination's doctrine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They have no doctrine. They make their rules up as they go along. That's the point of Protestantism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Either you have got totally the wrong end of the Protestant stick or that was a jab at Protestantism at which I, a man who is trying to find his faith in the Anglican Church, am offended by.
<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Sep 8 2003, 05:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Sep 8 2003, 05:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They may refer to it as a marriage, but in the eyes of the Gov't it is only a union. Not a marriage, as the Gov't has recently had to start decide on what to call it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Marriage is a union of two people, calling it Civil Union is an attempt at appeasing certain "institutions".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Either you have got totally the wrong end of the Protestant stick or that was a jab at Protestantism at which I, a man who is trying to find his faith in the Anglican Church, am offended by. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry. I phrased it too harshly. What I meant was that Protestants can come to radically different conclusions about the meaning of the Bible. The Episcopalians failed to define whether homosexuality is good or evil, they simply held a majority vote over the admission of this one Bishop. You can hardly call that a change of doctrine, because by their Protestant understanding of faith, they want to impose as little doctrine as possible on their brethrens.
Alius, it's called a Civil Union for a reason. LEGALLY it cannot be called a marriage as traditional (lawyer) interpretation says a marriage is a RELIGIOUS union between two people.
and Alius, *STOP THE THREADJACKING, this is a discussion about homosexuality and it being right/wrong and not the thousand meanings of Civil Union*
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->should the lifestyle be avoided? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. (apart from my religious beliefs which i will not discuss here) It has ne benefit for the species. It does not create any new offspring therefore it is unnatural and wrong
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
The flaw with your argument, steinsky, is that sometimes an increase in population is NOT desired.
See prior thread about how homosexuality is a completely natural thing, able to be found throughout nature in all mammalian species, most avian species, and even a few piscine species, especially in situations of overcrowding, lack of food, or a rough 'critical mass' breeding population (which could also be considered overcrowding in many cases).
There are *no* grounds to call homosexuality unnatural.
and thats the reason I was stayng out of this. without being able to discuss my religious beliefs, I cannot provide an argument against homosexuality, simply because the only reason i believe it is wrong is [due to my personal beliefs], but the less said about that, the better.
Yes. (apart from my religious beliefs which i will not discuss here) It has ne benefit for the species. It does not create any new offspring therefore it is unnatural and wrong <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How about masturbation? or ... cutting one's hair? how about adolescent relationships?
Okay, it's "unnatural," and has no genetic benefit for the species... it doesn't make it wrong. You can consider it [the actual sex act] to be a recreational activity, to some degree. (Not to trivialize the actual relationship)
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
I've always felt that having a problem with homosexuality stems from personal issues. Certainly, as I've become happier with myself, I've had less issues with other people's opinions or lifestyles.
The big issue with homosexuality is the whole nature/nurture thing. Either you think that it is a natural abberation, in which case no problem, it's a problem that comes with a built in solution. Forcing people to act straight only increases the amount of people carrying the "**** gene".
If you think that it is a nurture thing, then you object to it on the basis of personal morality. You are saying it is "wrong". That's a pretty twisted view considering that it harms no one. It's like summarily deciding that all people with brown skin are wrong.
I mean what's the big deal? It's not like homosexuals are breeding rampantly.
Coil I cant reply man - religion is banned in this topic and I've already been nuked once, so I guess I'm just going to have to restrain myself. But but but.... okay I'm going to say one thing...
I have no faith in the Church to do anything, they are human and I dont trust them as far as I can throw them - and I cant throw them. The Church doesnt set my morals.
This thread has reached its conclusion boys and girls. We all agree that without moral objections, there can be no opposition to homosexuality.
If we want to try and bring moral objections in, then we are going to have to make ourselves a new thread, because to discuss morals means to discuss religion.
you can discuss religion, you just can't use it as the foundation for "Deity X says it's wrong so I believe that" - you have to find the MORALS behind the religious part of it to prove it wrong.
The Roman Catholic's dogma banned Homosexuality because it's what the Greek's did and they wanted to be seperate from the churches. But that still doesn't make it wrong.
But the entire foundation of religious morals ARE deity X says this is wrong.
You can debate about why till the end of time, but for religion is still comes down to deity X says its wrong. There is nothing else behind these morals other than the backing of the devine.
If the Roman Catholics banned homosexuality merely to distinguish themselves from the Greeks than I will be the first to call them fools. Thats not what makes it wrong. Deity X saying its wrong is what makes it wrong.
As I said before, there are two sides here. The "relative morals", which I believe is completely flawed, and the Deity X says its wrong concrete morals group.
As the second part of the arguement has been outlawed from the discussion, then there is nothing for it but to agree, within the limitations of the thread, that there can be no opposition to homosexuality from a relative morality viewpoint.
And that is precisely what this thread is saying. Assuming morals are relative, why shouldnt homosexuals continue to practise? And the answer is, there isnt any reason why they shouldnt.
Yes. (apart from my religious beliefs which i will not discuss here) It has ne benefit for the species. It does not create any new offspring therefore it is unnatural and wrong <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How about masturbation? or ... cutting one's hair? how about adolescent relationships?
Okay, it's "unnatural," and has no genetic benefit for the species... it doesn't make it wrong. You can consider it [the actual sex act] to be a recreational activity, to some degree. (Not to trivialize the actual relationship) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its liek i said windel. I cannot produce an arguement against homosexuality without reffering to my religion. My morals come from religion and so i cannot talk about them. If the rules of the thread are to keep religion out of it then there will be no arguement because (it seems to me that) the only people who object to homosexual acts are religious people.
Cutting one's hair is hardly a moral issue. Adolescent relationships can be thought of as practice for later life. Masturbation i cant argue about becasue i am not alloed to discuss religion.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 9 2003, 05:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 9 2003, 05:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the rules of the thread are to keep religion out of it then there will be no arguement because (it seems to me that) the only people who object to homosexual acts are religious people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all. Nonreligious folk object to homosexuality all the time.
Think about the usual response to homosexuality. Disgust, fear, loathing; and very few times do I hear religion invoked while I'm out on the street with my girlfriend. They object to our loving, our sexuality, our attempt to gain equality. Though a good deal of anti-homosexual sentiment stems from the religious community, there's also a great deal that doesn't. It's not "That's against God's wishes!," it's "ewww, f*gs/h*mos/whatever." It's "keep those queers in the closet" or "g*ys are so disgusting."
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 9 2003, 08:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 9 2003, 08:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Love the sinner, hate the sin <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Something I find very commendable. If only the (Catholic) church would butt out of legal issues regarding homosexuality...
A problem I've found is that some churches take that stance, but decide that they hate the sin so much that they have to take measures to "cure" it. As for it being a sin, I don't recall any 'official' texts speaking about it one way or the other; the only one I can think of would be the Bible, but I don't take much stock in a book that contradicts itself multiple times.
I find it (the church's general 'official' opinion) to be more a political-social stance more than anything.
Oh what a surprise, once more this arguement comes back to the accuracy of the Bible - but we cant discuss that here. We really have to try harder to keep this off religious grounds - everyone here agrees that outside of religious opposition, no reasonable attack can be made on the loving relationship of same sex couples.
Is it just me or does this thread seem to be pretty much over? Anyone feel that they have anything new to add that isnt to do with either the promotion or rejection of religious arguements?
Well, speaking as an Atheist, I can certainly say that it is possible to have morals without religion. Some people seem unable to grasp the concept that they can decide what is wrong/right without someone telling them. Personally I can't understand this since it is obvious that many religious people don't follow the Bible/Church verbatum, so they must be deciding what is moral and then deciding that God would want what is moral.
So, with our new(?) found ability to make moral decision for ourselves, can anyone explain why homosexuality can be considered wrong?
-Its disgusting? well, personally I think Mayo is disgusting, but I don't think its wrong for people to eat it. -Its unnatural? So is wearing clothes, but again, I hardly consider that wrong. Frankly, I don't think it would be wrong if people chose not to wear clothes in public, but some people think it would harm their childs psyche to see the natural human form.
Certainly a forum of such intelegent individuals can do better than this?
Thank you, Skulk. Yes folks, morals are not the exclusive domain of Christians! You CAN have a discussion involving morality without invoking Bible verses.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
The problem is that even atheists in the western world are brought up with a religious morality, simply because despite even America's attempts to seperate Church and State, the fact is that the laws and thus education reflect a Christian morality, not a rational ethical view.
Just because I was brought up with Christian morality, doesn't mean I base ANY of my morals on chrisitan beliefs. You really just don't get it do you? YOU CAN FORM MORAL OPINIONS NOT BASED ON THE WORD OF A DEITY!! Guess what, I can logically state why I believe something to be wrong without saying "GOD SAID SO!". Were my opinions maybe influenced by my chrisitan upbringing? Could be. Does that matter at all? No, since I can back up my opinions with an argument based in logic.
Why do you feel such a need to force religion into the issue? Surely you can make <i>some</i> kind of argument besides "My religion says its wrong", surely you can think of a reason why your religion thinks its wrong?
EDIT: That was unessesarily harsh, and incorrectly aimed, sorry Grendel. You probably have no idea how much you **** me off with that because I thought you were somebody else.
Yeah yeah yeah, I'm sure everything is just peachy with your own set of created morals.
However, it then becomes impossible to call anything morally wrong. You cant criticise the Nazi's for killing Jews, that was perfectly justified with their own little set of made up morals.
Made up morals are insane. It makes it impossible to condemn anything anyone does.
So, prove to me, using your own set of morals and logic, that what the Nazi's did was wrong. Keep in mind that you cant criticise the Nazi's morals based on your own. Both of you made your own rules up, so whose to say whose is right and whose is wrong?
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 10 2003, 12:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 10 2003, 12:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah yeah yeah, I'm sure everything is just peachy with your own set of created morals.
However, it then becomes impossible to call anything morally wrong. You cant criticise the Nazi's for killing Jews, that was perfectly justified with their own little set of made up morals.
Made up morals are insane. It makes it impossible to condemn anything anyone does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting point of view. The Nazi's "reasons" to kill Jews were kind of irrational. Now give me a rational explanation of why God hates homosexuality.
"made up morals" aren't necessarily the most absurd...
Many times, 'morals' are established to accomplish some sort of societal goal, and then actions are taken to implement the moral.
Examples: Goal: People don't want to get killed. Implementation: Punishment to those who kill people. Moral established: It is decided that killing people are bad. Goal: People like their stuff. Implementation: Punishment to those who take other people's stuff. Moral established: Taking stuff from other people is bad.
Now, these are trivial examples, but it's really the basis of a lot of 'political' decisions. Examples: Goal: Germany needs to rise out of its post WWI recession. Implementation: Go to war. War always brings the economy up, but the people need a 'reason' to fight. So they find a scapegoat -- Jews. Moral established: Jews deserve to be killed. Goal: William Randolph Hearst wants to eliminate hemp paper from competing from his wood paper. Implementation: Lobby extensively to get cannabis illegalized. Moral established: Marijuana is bad.
Now here's the kicker: Goal: Religions wish to maintain their credability and thus their influence. Implementation: Try to have scriptures that are 'true'. Since you can't change millennia old scriptures, however, all you can do is enforce their message. Moral established: Whatever morals that the religion stipulates.
Now, you *can* change millennia old scriptures. It's the process of founding a new church. This has happened many times.
However, the Pope can't just denounce his faith and make a new church saying that homosexuality is okay. So that leaves him with but one option.
So is homosexuality really 'morally' wrong? If it's taken in a context in which it threatens the goals of those trying to implement them, be it credability of the church, financial gain, or an excuse to start World War III (not implying that those are goals of the same class by any means) then it will be thought of by them.
Ironically, it is actually been discovered that the **** image is good for business. Therefore, now companies and the media are enforcing homosexuality as okay through many TV shows and advertisements, because it helps them to implement their goals of making money. Take a look at shows like 'Boy meets Boy' and 'Queer as Folk' and you have prime examples of media sponsorship of the idea of homosexuality.
Because of such exposure to homosexuality by the media, what will probably happen is that more and more people will find less and less 'morally' wrong with homosexuality.
As a side note, as acceptance of homosexuality pervades society, we may find in the future that the 'moral' correctness of such as dictated by the church may change -- but such an occurrance has happened before, albeit slowly. We find nothing morally wrong with believing that the earth revolves around the sun, but we all remember what happened to Galileo for his dissemination of his radical heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Comments
The fact is that a religion's god doesn't set the morals of his/her followers; those officials who run the institution do. The Pope sets Catholic dogma, and Christians the world over trust him to do so. But he is still human, and therefore fallible. I'm not religious, but if I were, I promise you that my opinion on the matter would be to have faith in the idea, not in the institution around it.
Again going back to my sociology class... one of the things we talked about in our discussion of institutions was how they relate to humanity as a whole. The lesson learned was that most institutions are a subset of mankind; sometimes representative, sometimes not; but the more important point was that institutions, because of their structure and ingrained traditions, are much slower to accept change and change themselves. But they *do* change.
When did it do that? As early as 1462, Pius II called it a "great crime".
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the Church also orchestrated the Crusades and the Inquisition<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does this constitute a change of morals? Only the means by which heresy is fought have changed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bible speaks of stoning people for sinning<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chemistry now allows us to administer the death penalty by more humane means, but again, the morals have not changed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->that eating shellfish is a sin<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's unclean for Jews, but not sinful.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Presbyterian Church<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Episcopalian.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->a major shift in that denomination's doctrine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have no doctrine. They make their rules up as they go along. That's the point of Protestantism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Pope sets Catholic dogma,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The dogma is <i>interpretation</i> of existing law. New laws have never been made, and won't be made. The function of the Magisterium is judicial, not legislative.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But he is still human, and therefore fallible<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the time, yes, but when teaching theology <i>ex cathedra</i>, the Holy Ghost is thought to prevent him from erring, as promised. How else would you explain that even the greatest scoundrels and criminals, when they were Pope, did not teach a single heresy?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The lesson learned was that most institutions are a subset of mankind; sometimes representative, sometimes not; but the more important point was that institutions, because of their structure and ingrained traditions, are much slower to accept change and change themselves. But they *do* change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The institutions change, the interpretation changes, but the natural law doesn't. It's like the Constitution: the Supreme Court re-interprets it according to circumstances, but the actual law never changes. Still, the Constitution would be a worthless mass of letters if there weren't an institution with final authority to explain what the law <i>means</i> in any given context.
The rule of society should be (IMHO) that all lifestyles should be allowed so long as they are not harmful. If a man wants to have sex with another man, it is their choice, not the choice of the society. If they want to enjoy the same LEGAL privileges as a Hetero married couple they should be allowed to.
IMHO, Civil Unions (Go Vermont! Smartest thing done in the nation since making computers & Nukes) should be handled exactly like a Marriage. It would not be the Religious/Legal marriage that Hetero's have but rather a Union of two people, so that they may enjoy the same benefits of married hetero's. 49(48)/50 have no Civil Union laws and some even nullify it but the homosexual people deserve the same legal treatment as hetero couples.
They have no doctrine. They make their rules up as they go along. That's the point of Protestantism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Either you have got totally the wrong end of the Protestant stick or that was a jab at Protestantism at which I, a man who is trying to find his faith in the Anglican Church, am offended by.
Marriage is a union of two people, calling it Civil Union is an attempt at appeasing certain "institutions".
I'm sorry. I phrased it too harshly. What I meant was that Protestants can come to radically different conclusions about the meaning of the Bible. The Episcopalians failed to define whether homosexuality is good or evil, they simply held a majority vote over the admission of this one Bishop. You can hardly call that a change of doctrine, because by their Protestant understanding of faith, they want to impose as little doctrine as possible on their brethrens.
and Alius, *STOP THE THREADJACKING, this is a discussion about homosexuality and it being right/wrong and not the thousand meanings of Civil Union*
Yes. (apart from my religious beliefs which i will not discuss here) It has ne benefit for the species. It does not create any new offspring therefore it is unnatural and wrong
See prior thread about how homosexuality is a completely natural thing, able to be found throughout nature in all mammalian species, most avian species, and even a few piscine species, especially in situations of overcrowding, lack of food, or a rough 'critical mass' breeding population (which could also be considered overcrowding in many cases).
There are *no* grounds to call homosexuality unnatural.
Yes. (apart from my religious beliefs which i will not discuss here) It has ne benefit for the species. It does not create any new offspring therefore it is unnatural and wrong <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about masturbation?
or ... cutting one's hair?
how about adolescent relationships?
Okay, it's "unnatural," and has no genetic benefit for the species... it doesn't make it wrong. You can consider it [the actual sex act] to be a recreational activity, to some degree. (Not to trivialize the actual relationship)
The big issue with homosexuality is the whole nature/nurture thing. Either you think that it is a natural abberation, in which case no problem, it's a problem that comes with a built in solution. Forcing people to act straight only increases the amount of people carrying the "**** gene".
If you think that it is a nurture thing, then you object to it on the basis of personal morality. You are saying it is "wrong". That's a pretty twisted view considering that it harms no one. It's like summarily deciding that all people with brown skin are wrong.
I mean what's the big deal? It's not like homosexuals are breeding rampantly.
And I agree with Grendel. As you become secure in your personality you'll find you become used to a lot of things.
I have no faith in the Church to do anything, they are human and I dont trust them as far as I can throw them - and I cant throw them. The Church doesnt set my morals.
This thread has reached its conclusion boys and girls. We all agree that without moral objections, there can be no opposition to homosexuality.
If we want to try and bring moral objections in, then we are going to have to make ourselves a new thread, because to discuss morals means to discuss religion.
The Roman Catholic's dogma banned Homosexuality because it's what the Greek's did and they wanted to be seperate from the churches. But that still doesn't make it wrong.
You can debate about why till the end of time, but for religion is still comes down to deity X says its wrong. There is nothing else behind these morals other than the backing of the devine.
If the Roman Catholics banned homosexuality merely to distinguish themselves from the Greeks than I will be the first to call them fools. Thats not what makes it wrong. Deity X saying its wrong is what makes it wrong.
As I said before, there are two sides here. The "relative morals", which I believe is completely flawed, and the Deity X says its wrong concrete morals group.
As the second part of the arguement has been outlawed from the discussion, then there is nothing for it but to agree, within the limitations of the thread, that there can be no opposition to homosexuality from a relative morality viewpoint.
And that is precisely what this thread is saying. Assuming morals are relative, why shouldnt homosexuals continue to practise? And the answer is, there isnt any reason why they shouldnt.
Yes. (apart from my religious beliefs which i will not discuss here) It has ne benefit for the species. It does not create any new offspring therefore it is unnatural and wrong <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about masturbation?
or ... cutting one's hair?
how about adolescent relationships?
Okay, it's "unnatural," and has no genetic benefit for the species... it doesn't make it wrong. You can consider it [the actual sex act] to be a recreational activity, to some degree. (Not to trivialize the actual relationship) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its liek i said windel. I cannot produce an arguement against homosexuality without reffering to my religion. My morals come from religion and so i cannot talk about them. If the rules of the thread are to keep religion out of it then there will be no arguement because (it seems to me that) the only people who object to homosexual acts are religious people.
Cutting one's hair is hardly a moral issue. Adolescent relationships can be thought of as practice for later life. Masturbation i cant argue about becasue i am not alloed to discuss religion.
thankyou and good night
If the rules of the thread are to keep religion out of it then there will be no arguement because (it seems to me that) the only people who object to homosexual acts are religious people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all. Nonreligious folk object to homosexuality all the time.
Think about the usual response to homosexuality. Disgust, fear, loathing; and very few times do I hear religion invoked while I'm out on the street with my girlfriend. They object to our loving, our sexuality, our attempt to gain equality. Though a good deal of anti-homosexual sentiment stems from the religious community, there's also a great deal that doesn't. It's not "That's against God's wishes!," it's "ewww, f*gs/h*mos/whatever." It's "keep those queers in the closet" or "g*ys are so disgusting."
Something I find very commendable. If only the (Catholic) church would butt out of legal issues regarding homosexuality...
A problem I've found is that some churches take that stance, but decide that they hate the sin so much that they have to take measures to "cure" it. As for it being a sin, I don't recall any 'official' texts speaking about it one way or the other; the only one I can think of would be the Bible, but I don't take much stock in a book that contradicts itself multiple times.
I find it (the church's general 'official' opinion) to be more a political-social stance more than anything.
Is it just me or does this thread seem to be pretty much over? Anyone feel that they have anything new to add that isnt to do with either the promotion or rejection of religious arguements?
So, with our new(?) found ability to make moral decision for ourselves, can anyone explain why homosexuality can be considered wrong?
-Its disgusting?
well, personally I think Mayo is disgusting, but I don't think its wrong for people to eat it.
-Its unnatural?
So is wearing clothes, but again, I hardly consider that wrong. Frankly, I don't think it would be wrong if people chose not to wear
clothes in public, but some people think it would harm their childs psyche to see the natural human form.
Certainly a forum of such intelegent individuals can do better than this?
Why do you feel such a need to force religion into the issue? Surely you can make <i>some</i> kind of argument besides "My religion says its wrong", surely you can think of a reason why your religion thinks its wrong?
EDIT: That was unessesarily harsh, and incorrectly aimed, sorry Grendel. You probably have no idea how much you **** me off with that because I thought you were somebody else.
However, it then becomes impossible to call anything morally wrong. You cant criticise the Nazi's for killing Jews, that was perfectly justified with their own little set of made up morals.
Made up morals are insane. It makes it impossible to condemn anything anyone does.
So, prove to me, using your own set of morals and logic, that what the Nazi's did was wrong. Keep in mind that you cant criticise the Nazi's morals based on your own. Both of you made your own rules up, so whose to say whose is right and whose is wrong?
However, it then becomes impossible to call anything morally wrong. You cant criticise the Nazi's for killing Jews, that was perfectly justified with their own little set of made up morals.
Made up morals are insane. It makes it impossible to condemn anything anyone does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting point of view. The Nazi's "reasons" to kill Jews were kind of irrational. Now give me a rational explanation of why God hates homosexuality.
"made up morals" aren't necessarily the most absurd...
Examples:
Goal: People don't want to get killed. Implementation: Punishment to those who kill people. Moral established: It is decided that killing people are bad.
Goal: People like their stuff. Implementation: Punishment to those who take other people's stuff. Moral established: Taking stuff from other people is bad.
Now, these are trivial examples, but it's really the basis of a lot of 'political' decisions.
Examples:
Goal: Germany needs to rise out of its post WWI recession. Implementation: Go to war. War always brings the economy up, but the people need a 'reason' to fight. So they find a scapegoat -- Jews. Moral established: Jews deserve to be killed.
Goal: William Randolph Hearst wants to eliminate hemp paper from competing from his wood paper. Implementation: Lobby extensively to get cannabis illegalized. Moral established: Marijuana is bad.
Now here's the kicker:
Goal: Religions wish to maintain their credability and thus their influence. Implementation: Try to have scriptures that are 'true'. Since you can't change millennia old scriptures, however, all you can do is enforce their message. Moral established: Whatever morals that the religion stipulates.
Now, you *can* change millennia old scriptures. It's the process of founding a new church. This has happened many times.
However, the Pope can't just denounce his faith and make a new church saying that homosexuality is okay. So that leaves him with but one option.
So is homosexuality really 'morally' wrong? If it's taken in a context in which it threatens the goals of those trying to implement them, be it credability of the church, financial gain, or an excuse to start World War III (not implying that those are goals of the same class by any means) then it will be thought of by them.
Ironically, it is actually been discovered that the **** image is good for business. Therefore, now companies and the media are enforcing homosexuality as okay through many TV shows and advertisements, because it helps them to implement their goals of making money. Take a look at shows like 'Boy meets Boy' and 'Queer as Folk' and you have prime examples of media sponsorship of the idea of homosexuality.
Because of such exposure to homosexuality by the media, what will probably happen is that more and more people will find less and less 'morally' wrong with homosexuality.
As a side note, as acceptance of homosexuality pervades society, we may find in the future that the 'moral' correctness of such as dictated by the church may change -- but such an occurrance has happened before, albeit slowly. We find nothing morally wrong with believing that the earth revolves around the sun, but we all remember what happened to Galileo for his dissemination of his radical heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Rhuadin