Irrelevant to the question at hand
What’s this test going to prove? That some people don’t like arguments in favor of morality found in religion? Or that we have to find different ways to find morality other than religious arguments, because someone’s brains are going to be blown off?
C’mon Bradskii. We all know you have the wisdom of the ages. We need answers.
If nothing else, I hope this thread demonstrates to readers the arbitrary moral emptiness and almost superstitious disregard of reason by atheism.
Gee, how evasive can one be? It’s a ridiculously easy question. If you have a sick dog, at what point would you put it down? It’s a hypothetical so you are giving NO personal information about yourself. Except where you draw the line in said case.
When you have made a decision, then tell us what prompted it. We can even have a hypothetical Joe who owns the dog. In your opinion, would it be immoral to immediately euthanise it or leave it to the last minute.
Now, whether you give an answer or not doesn’t alter the fact that you would have a personal opinion on the matter. Your problem is to explain where your moral view n it comes from. And why it might differ from umpteen other Catholics.
Exactly right! Or close enough anyway. It’s that we CAN find moral answers without referring to religion. At least I hope you can.
Seems to be quite a reluctance to answer simple questions in this thread…
Good grief, are you not following the thread? I am emphasising that reason is paramount in determining morality.
Would you prefer a vote? or a reasoned discussion? Because there are an infinite number of moral problems that are nor covered by anything associated with your specific religion.
Infinite number? Now that’s ridiculous.
You probably believe you are a great dancer, but the fact that you left your pants at home is fairly obvious to everyone else.
Do tell me how those answers don’t lead to moral relativism
No clue why masturbation came up as this isn’t the thread topic, but I love how the logic being employed is that since most people do it, it must be okay. So if most people go around killing each other than it must be okay? This comes full circle back to gay marriage. Why don’t we just built a golden caff already? … this logic seems all too familiar…
What is done by the majority doesn’t make it morally right. Nature doesn’t equate to natural.
Your point is well taken. I noticed no response, but you point out why I cringe anytime someone starts quoting Levitical law as moral support. One cannot go back 4000 years without context. While moral law does not change, How that moral law is handled politically must change. An example comes from the Church’s recognition over the last century that we live in a pluralistic society. We cannot convert by force or regulate doctrine by law. Thus, we have the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty. Suppressing error and sin by force is not a good idea.
The passage you quote was not for the purpose of promoting slavery, but of limiting slavery between Israelites, if seen in the full context. The principle that does not change is the Golden Rule of doing unto others as we would have them do to us.
The issue with homosexual adoption is the same issue with abortion: there is another party being affected.
It goes without saying that a child who is being adopted will be affected, hopefully for the better. But I haven’t seen any convincing evidence yet that having two loving same-sex parents would negatively affect a child or that opposite sex parents are superior.
People quote studies about how children without fathers do worse, but I don’t think that that is due to the fact that the home does not have both a mother and a father, but rather to the fact it is in most cases a home with a single mother and since single mothers in particular often struggle financially, this financial instability is bound to have a negative impact. I’m not convinced that a financially stable and loving home with two mothers or two fathers would harm a child.
If a study could be designed in which all the variables are the same except the sex of the parents (i.e. all the two parent families are financially well off, all have loving and engaged parents, etc.) , I doubt that there would be any differences in how well adjusted and happy the children are or whether they go on to be successful and productive adults.
Getting back to the topic,
One doesn’t need to have a moral compass, or any compass at all, to be capable of sane observation.
One doesn’t need to subscribe to any religious creed to be capable of sane observation either.
Or read scripture.
Or be a member of the Catholic Church.
All one has to do is be capable of sane observation.
And to deny the fact that human beings are uniquely a product of the union of a man and a woman is, put bluntly, insanity.
Of course, one could be capable of observing what is, and still obfuscate, avoid, and deny what is seen. And we would call that “deception”.
Let the dancing continue.
I didnt come to that conclusion myself.
I came to the conclusion that if masturbation and irregular marriages/unions are gravely disordered (which our Church teaches), and if sociology/anthroplogy well demonstrates such conduct is widespread in most cultures and religions despite that teaching, THEN it seemy very likely to me that this is a normal human brokenness or area of weakness possibly with biological or trauma or anxiety or psychological aetiology. Lack of control will be about more than 100% moral turpitude…as would be the case in a world where such brokeness is not the norm.
In this world such brokenness is normal, even in the animal kingdom.
In which case significant numbers of these persons are a graced work in progress not stagnent in a state of mortal sin only relieved by confession every fortnight.
Which, as others have observed, is what Pope Francis seems to have gone to some length to explain in his Apostolic Exhortation.
Who can deny that a gay couple could provide a more stable home than some other couples? Of course that’s possible.
That’s not the issue. The issue is taking the good that is present between any two people and making it into something it objectively is not. And creating an equality between institutions that doesn’t exist.
I can run (barely), I can jump, I can shoot a basketball. But I am not a professional basketball player, and I shouldn’t claim to be, or demand that society recognize me as such.
And at the end of the day, forcing others to recognize a falsehood detracts from my own well being. Might not seem like it the short term, cause I sure could use the trappings of the NBA, but in reality…deception is not good for me.
Thats not quite a fair summary of the issue, at least not mine.
Let me rephrase:
I am a gifted and experienced basketball player but havent risen through the usual clubs, schools or institutions and so am a nobody.
Why should I not even be investigated and judged when I apply, like all the other bluebloods, just because I have no apparent bona fides?
That I suggest is the issue.
Analogy doesn’t work.
In your example, you are what you claim to be., but you are discriminated against.
To go further, a Jewish person in Nazi Germany is objectively a human being, but is subject to the ““personal determinations”” of a select few that he is not a human being.
That is a heinous deception that denies common sense and self evident human nature.
In regards to this issue, the union of a gay couple is equated to that of a man and woman, when they are not the same thing.
What do you mean?