Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Autodidact]

I am tempted to differenciate morality with a belief system. Nazism has got something with a belief system and not necessarily a call on morality. It is true that a belief system might not necessarily be moral. From this juncture, i wish to state that i have taken some few lessons from you which will assist me in my future dealings. Any way i am a christian.

Is your morality also Christian?

[Choir Loft]

Let me correct this: i meant to post 'A man shows love to a cat = he does NOT eat cat = Moral'

In response to your analogy as regard morality and imorality i am surprised your very assertion of morality is the term 'harm'. I am certain that immorality does not necessarily have to be a harmful act. Immorality irrespective of how harmless it may appear will still be immoral. Society decision of acceptance or rejection of an act might be its harmfulness to another (that is one aspect) and or its distastefulness or what is preceived as an anormlly outside natural law.

Societies do not determine morality. Morality is an objective term for human evolved precepts of altruism and empathy. They are most easily explained and quantified in terms of harm.

The easy ready example is Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s. The society accepted and encouraged antisemitism and the ultimate torture/murder of millions of innocent people. By your definition of morality, this was a moral action, because their society accepted the act. In this way I try to point out that you seem to simply not understand what morality is.

Until you can show that homosexuality or homosexual marriage causes more harm than good, then you have no right to declare it immoral. Likewise, stating such an opinion without proper support is bigotry, and hurtful (indeed ironically, an immoral action).

I am tempted to differenciate morality with a belief system. Nazism has got something with a belief system and not necessarily a call on morality. It is true that a belief system might not necessarily be moral. From this juncture, i wish to state that i have taken some few lessons from you which will assist me in my future dealings. Any way i am a christian.

There are two problems with your logic regarding morality.

The first problem is that you equate morality with harm; harm to an individual or harm to a society.
The second is that you attempt to divorce morality from belief systems.

Neither is correct, therefore your conclusions are erroneous.

When there is a problem about the root meaning of a word it's always best to go back to basics.
In this case we need to examine the classic definition of 'morality', which is "a doctrine or system of rules of conduct"(Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

At street level, rules of conduct are defined and enforced by society.

#1 In your example of 1930's Germany, the morality or rules of behavior, was dictated by a cruel society.


"I want to raise a generation without a conscience, relentless and cruel."- Adolph Hitler

But where do these rules of conduct come from? They don't pop in out of thin air, that's for sure.

#2 The foundation of all social rules of conduct, morality or law is based upon religious belief systems.
These laws or rules can be corrupted or compromised, but never completely separated from their religious roots.

Most societies hold certain basic rules in common. For example, one shouldn't steal or kill for personal gain.
Some societies allow a man to have many wives while others restrict a man to only one wife. None allow a man to have any woman he wants. All societies and religions except one believe it's wrong to lie.(*)

Morality can never be divorced from a belief system. Like it or not, one way or another, religion percolates into the laws of the community.

Among the nations of western Europe and North America, homosexual relationships are tolerated. With the establishment of marriage between same sex couples, the 'official rules' or laws of society reflect changing social behavior. It should be appreciated that this rule change has come at the cost of the denial of western religous precepts.

Morality, as a system of rules of conduct, does not apply for all societies equally. Observe that although Christendom has given up opposing gay behavior and marriage, Islam has not. What is now acceptable and legal in the west is justification for a death sentence in Muslim countries.

Since Islam is acknowledged by many to be the wave of the future, a gay person would be well advised to enjoy their liberty while they may. Christianity is far more tolerant of the ways of the sodomite than the Saracen.

(*) Islam is the only religion which has a doctrine to justify lying.

[Goat]

.

#1 In your example of 1930's Germany, the morality or rules of behavior, was dictated by a cruel society.


"I want to raise a generation without a conscience, relentless and cruel."- Adolph Hitler

But where do these rules of conduct come from? They don't pop in out of thin air, that's for sure.

Please provide the source of this quote, thank you very much. The only source I see for that quote is another board, with someone with your very initials claiming it.

[Deadclown]

There are two problems with your logic regarding morality.

The first problem is that you equate morality with harm; harm to an individual or harm to a society.
The second is that you attempt to divorce morality from belief systems.

Not exactly a correct restatement. I equate *immorality* with causing harm of any sort. This can include people or anything that can experience suffering. Harming a 'society' may not necessarily be immoral depending on the society. If the consequences of the harming of the society cause suffering, then it is an immoral action. Although it is important to note that ethics often concerns looking at the path of least harm (lesser of two evils).

While I have shown that morality is a separate concept from belief systems (predating them even), I pointed out thoroughly that belief systems often shape how morality is applied.

Neither is correct, therefore your conclusions are erroneous.

When there is a problem about the root meaning of a word it's always best to go back to basics.
In this case we need to examine the classic definition of 'morality', which is "a doctrine or system of rules of conduct"(Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

I notice how you cherry pick the definition instead of including the full definition. Morality can mean a doctrine or system of moral conduct, but that is not the way it has been used. In addition, I bet you are going to twist the wording of that particular definition to suit your aims. Note that other definitions include, 'conformity to ideals of right human conduct'. In any case, I would not expect the dictionary to fully detail the specifics of a very complex word with great philosophical and scientific meaning.

At street level, rules of conduct are defined and enforced by society.

Those are laws (which would be a good word for you to look up, apparently). Laws are enforced by society. Morality is not necessarily.

#1 In your example of 1930's Germany, the morality or rules of behavior, was dictated by a cruel society.

The *laws* were dictated by a cruel society. The cruel society attempted to desensitize its people and dehumanize its foes through propaganda. This had zero effect on inherent morality, only on how it was applied. Do you think that the German people were not ever kind to one another? Do you think that Hitler perhaps did not love or care for his wife and dog because he hated the Jews?

"I want to raise a generation without a conscience, relentless and cruel."- Adolph Hitler

I am with Goat. You cite no sources for the quote, it sounds like propaganda, and I challenge you to prove it authentic.

But where do these rules of conduct come from? They don't pop in out of thin air, that's for sure.

Laws do not pop out of then air. Morality evolved over the course of millions of years due to our tribal/pack oriented beginnings. I have detailed this previously.

#2 The foundation of all social rules of conduct, morality or law is based upon religious belief systems.
These laws or rules can be corrupted or compromised, but never completely separated from their religious roots.

You use morality and law interchangeably. Personally, this is a rather disappointing argument since it was the first problem I pointed out to the last person who said as much. This seems to be the consistently reoccurring mistake that people always make in your position. You also make the outlandish assertion that all laws and social rules of conduct are based off of religion.

I challenge you to prove that assertion instead of just assuming it to be true.

Most societies hold certain basic rules in common. For example, one shouldn't steal or kill for personal gain.

Yes. This is because a lot of laws are based on the inherent human ideals of altruism and empathy, ie morality. Not all, certainly. It harms someone to steal from them. It harms someone to kill them (for personal gain or otherwise). It is illegal to allow the parking meter to run over or to go 1 MPH over the speed limit, these actions however, are not immoral, because they cause no harm.

Some societies allow a man to have many wives while others restrict a man to only one wife. None allow a man to have any woman he wants. All societies and religions except one believe it's wrong to lie.(*)

Laws regarding polygamy generally have little basis in morality, so a fine example of why you are so confused. You are also quite wrong on the count of lying. Perhaps you have never heard of a 'white lie' or 'exaggeration'. What would you say if your mother asked you if you thought she was ugly?

Morality can never be divorced from a belief system. Like it or not, one way or another, religion percolates into the laws of the community.

My likes or dislikes have nothing to do with it. You have just weaved such a convoluted and incorrect series of connections that it is a little sad. In particular considering that I've covered all of this previously. You have it completely backwards. Belief systems manipulate morality and the other inherent human traits (good or bad). The fact that religion can influence the laws of the community (although you need to show that it is the foundation of all of them), or that beliefs can influence morality, in no way impacts my argument.

Among the nations of western Europe and North America, homosexual relationships are tolerated. With the establishment of marriage between same sex couples, the 'official rules' or laws of society reflect changing social behavior. It should be appreciated that this rule change has come at the cost of the denial of western religous precepts.

It is very much appreciated. I hope that morality will someday trump all such archaic barbaric belief systems. As well it should.

Morality, as a system of rules of conduct, does not apply for all societies equally. Observe that although Christendom has given up opposing gay behavior and marriage, Islam has not. What is now acceptable and legal in the west is justification for a death sentence in Muslim countries.

This only serves to show that those specific Muslim countries (certainly not all Muslims) have successfully demonized the Other in the same manner that the Nazis did. The Nazis homosexual people for some religiously motivated reasons too, you know (Nazi Germany and Hitler were Christian).

Since Islam is acknowledged by many to be the wave of the future, a gay person would be well advised to enjoy their liberty while they may. Christianity is far more tolerant of the ways of the sodomite than the Saracen.

I care little for the 'acknowledgments of many' vague nameless authorities. I have seen statistical studies showing that atheism is on the rise in developed nations. So let us hope that the non-believers and homosexuals will be far more tolerant of the Christians and Muslims, than the Christians and Muslims are of them.

(*) Islam is the only religion which has a doctrine to justify lying.

Kindly support this. In order to do so you must not only show that Islam specifically condones lying, but that every other religion specifically abhors it in all forms.

You seem to be fond of making unsupported very general assertions without evidence.

[McCulloch]

The foundation of all social rules of conduct, morality or law is based upon religious belief systems.

I disagree. Societal norms precede religion. Religions were invented to reinforce rules of conduct, moral behavior and laws.

These laws or rules can be corrupted or compromised, but never completely separated from their religious roots.

Again, I disagree. And so apparently do the founders of the American Republic.

Morality, as a system of rules of conduct, does not apply for all societies equally. Observe that although Christendom has given up opposing gay behavior and marriage, Islam has not. What is now acceptable and legal in the west is justification for a death sentence in Muslim countries.

This is not because the west has Christian morals, but because the west has adopted secularism, the idea that religion should be separate from the affairs of state. As an idea, secularism is opposed by the teachings of Islam.

Since Islam is acknowledged by many to be the wave of the future, a gay person would be well advised to enjoy their liberty while they may.

I, and may others, certainly hope that your prophesy is wrong. The civil rights record between the west and the Islamic world have reversed in the last thousand years. In the golden age of Islam, Islam was significantly more tolerant of differences than the medieval west. Islam became more intolerant partly as a result of the Crusades launched at them by the west. In the west, the participation of religious leaders and religious doctrine in the governance of the state has waned.

Christianity is far more tolerant of the ways of the sodomite than the Saracen.

Nice statement! Two somewhat offensive outdated terms and grammatical ambiguity all in one sentence.

Islam is the only religion which has a doctrine to justify lying.

Most religions and philosophies justify lying in certain circumstances. Did not the Christian God send a deceiving spirit? The doctrine of mental reservation was developed and introduced primarily by the Jesuits.

[david_27]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

since this is a christian discussion room we dont rely on the judgement of man but about what God thinks about gay marriage.For it is written "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. "

[Goat]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

since this is a christian discussion room we dont rely on the judgement of man but about what God thinks about gay marriage.For it is written "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. "

Well.. it is 'religion' not 'Christian'.

And, if you read that passage in context.. something that is rarely done, the passage is not prohibiting it, but rather a claim by Paul that God is punishing idolaters by giving them that attribute.

[david_27]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

since this is a christian discussion room we dont rely on the judgement of man but about what God thinks about gay marriage.For it is written "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. "

Well.. it is 'religion' not 'Christian'.

And, if you read that passage in context.. something that is rarely done, the passage is not prohibiting it, but rather a claim by Paul that God is punishing idolaters by giving them that attribute.

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature-if this Holy Bible verse does not look that it is prohibiting lesbians the I believe you need wisdom from God to distinguish good and evil.

[Autodidact]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

since this is a christian discussion room we dont rely on the judgement of man but about what God thinks about gay marriage.For it is written "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. "

You are mistaken about where you are. As a newbie, it behooves you to read the FAQ, rather than tell longtime members where they are. This is not a Christian discussion room, it's a forum for members of all religions to debate religion.

Are you seriously trying to tell us what God thinks? You might begin by explaining what God is and how you came to know what It thinks. As someone who doesn't even know where you are, it seems unlikely that you are an authority on what God thinks.

What did Jesus say about same-sex marriage?

[Autodidact]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

since this is a christian discussion room we dont rely on the judgement of man but about what God thinks about gay marriage.For it is written "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. "

Well.. it is 'religion' not 'Christian'.

And, if you read that passage in context.. something that is rarely done, the passage is not prohibiting it, but rather a claim by Paul that God is punishing idolaters by giving them that attribute.

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature-if this Holy Bible verse does not look that it is prohibiting lesbians the I believe you need wisdom from God to distinguish good and evil.

First, your logic requires that your God did not care what two women did for 2000 years, and objected only in the NT. Second, you are leaping to a conclusion about what is natural and what is not. Finally, that story is not a prohibition, it's a consequence. It's not like the God of the Bible doesn't know how to prohibit things, yet He never prohibited this. He prohibits eating oysters, trimming your sideburns and building houses without parapets, but never lesbianism. Yet you, in your prejudice, assume it is wrong.

What kind of marriage does Jesus prohibit?