It's an interesting question, I suppose. The idea I keep coming back to is that the familial relationship, once known by both people, is always going to impact how they view each other. So while it might not be immoral based on the consent/grooming aspect, I would suspect that such a relationship is probably not going to be a healthy one. The power dynamic issue still exists, even without the parent being present in the child's life while growing up. But again, I'm not even attempting to view this through a religious mindset because that's not what my point of view is based on.

I have heard of several real life cases of couples with established relationships later finding out they are cousins or siblings or similar. Seems like an unfortunate situation no matter what your thoughts are on the morality issue.

I would be interested to know why this is such a passionate topic for you?

Do you perceive homosexuality to be a greater sin than others?

Is it worse than murder, theft or adultery.

I honestly don't know that it is and I say its no worse than lying.

Both are worthy of death.

As a married man I would find adultery a far worse sin as you have failed a sacrament.

Growing up Protestant being Gay was the worst thing you can be. As an Orthodox person I don't have the same perspective.

Just to jump ahead I don't have any gay family members and I am not gay myself so its not a stance based morality of mine.

I don't see that your question has anything to do with homosexuality. So I'm a bit confused. Imagine a situation where an adopted boy grows up and meets his mother for the first time when she is past childbearing age. They fall in love. It's the exact same incest scenario where offspring and grooming aren't issues. But we don't use that example to say that men and women shouldn't be together.

I think you have a point that some morals, such as incest in the above scenarios, should go beyond harm and utilitarianism. No one is getting hurt and no deformed offspring are going to come from these unions, but most people would still want this to be illegal and wrong.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

If gay marriage between consenting adults is ok, why isn't incestual marriage also ok?

Obviously the incest question has been used as a "gotcha" against gay marriage, when it is often an intellectually weak argument and not thought through, but I wanted to take a little time and develop the analogy and see if we can get to a spot where proponents have to rely on a "it's just ok, and that isn't"

So much of what frustrates me is the reverse engineering of morality based upon a personal anecdote which is unilaterally held as "ok". For example, I'm not going to name names, but there are some Catholics whose opinion on LGBTQ issues is flavored by an LGBTQ loved one. Rather than saying "based on my moral beliefs, or the set of moral beliefs I claim to adhere to, is my loved one living morally?" it is "There's no way my loved one can be doing anything bad, so they must be ok, and the teaching is wrong or needs to be nuanced".

So in my extremely gerrymandered scenario: a son who was given up for adoption meets his biological father for the first time at the age of 25. They fall madly in love, romantic "husband and wife" love. Stripped of any familial power dynamics, worries about malformed offspring, grooming or what have you, why is a standard run of the mill gay marriage/homosexual relationship ok, and this particular incestual relationship not?

For those that say this a very unlikely scenario which is used to paint all of the other vast vast majority of gay relationships in the same light, I bring up the abortion scenario. For so long we've heard the sad tale about the 14 year old girl who is raped by her father and is forced to bear his child in a pregnancy that will possibly kill or maim her, when that's a ridiculously contrived scenario used to gloss over the fact that 98% or so of abortions are done out of convenience.

For those that argue that 2% is still a hell of a lot more than whatever the prevalence of the scenario I describe is, I don't disagree, but that's still not addressing the morality of the question.

---

I think that it is a problem when we conflate justification for gay relationships with that of every and any other sexual practice you find problematic. The justifications and objections are different for homosexuality, transgenderism, bestiality, and incest. A justification for one does not automatically serve as an argument for all. Imagine I turned this thread around and asked you "Why is the Bible used to justify monogamy, but not used to justify owning slaves'? The answer is that even though the Bible discusses both, your reasoning and justifications vary. It would be disingenuous of me and a misrepresentation of your beliefs to assume that because you accept 'x' from the Bible at face value, that you must do the same for 'y' from the Bible.

I've constantly heard the argument from the anti-LGBTQ faction that 'well, if we let gays marry, then its a slippery slope and next thing you know we'll be marrying our pets. I recognize that there is a very small group of people that would be into marrying their pets, but its disingenuous to pretend the argument for gay marriage extends to anything or everything else.

The obvious objection to incest is the higher potential for genetic disorders. The next would be related to an inherent possible power imbalance and/or coercion between the parties involved. And then maybe a general concern about the emotional healthiness of such a relationship.

That said, ramblin's example above does a good job of addressing the main concern with a proposed scenario. The other concerns that I've listed are fairly universal concerns in any relationship - but perhaps just elevated in an incestual relationship. In other words, the concerns with incest can be applied to any other relationship. I think the biggest reason people oppose incest is cultural conditioning. Not that cultural conditioning is always bad.

If I were to compare how I evaluate the morality of incest to something else, I think I would go with pornography - let me explain. The pornography industry has a lot of bad actors, women get mistreated, people get mistreated, its often psychologically unhealthy, it can lead to addition, etc. etc. However, I would not say that pornography is automatically immoral. I can imagine a scenario where you had consenting individuals producing content outside of an abusive system and being consumed in way and in a quantity that is not damaging. I expect 75% of this board to disagree with that statement. And thats fine, I offer it in the interest of sharing opinions, not to convince you.

But, I see incest similarly. In practice, I think that most incest is usually unhealthy in some way, but not because I think they are automatically immoral. I think its usually problematic because of the risk of defect or coercion, or abusiveness, or because of some other factor involved.

In Ramblin's example, I think if the scenario were such that we had addressed all of the potential issues, I don't think I would say it was immoral. I find the idea of a mother and son together to be disturbing and bizarre and unsettling, but automatically immoral? I don't know that this is for us to judge.

Doesn't mean I'll ever stop finding it unsettling. . . but, why should my preferences matter when it comes to someone else? For example, my sister in law teaches her children that me, my wife, and my teenage boys will go to Hell and be tortured for eternity because we aren't Christians. I find that unsettling. I think it traumatic and unhealthy for her kids. I think its massively arrogant and judgmental. It has driven a wedge through the larger family structure. I have no shortage of reasons for why I disagree with my sister in law on this issue, but they are still her children and unless there is something overtly abusive, who am I to say she isn't permitted to give her children religious instruction as she sees fit?

The objection to homosexuality and incest posted in this thread that I've left out is appeal to God's design or argument that these things are 'unnatural'. I don't have any intention of criticizing anyone for holding those positions. But, to me, these arguments are opinions of flawed human beings without absolute knowledge trying their best at the impossible task of using their inadequate cognition to understand an impossibly infinite mind of a God who may or may not exist by reading and deciphering millennia old documentation written ages ago in different languages, cobbled together, and interpreted thousands of different ways because nothing in these claims is remotely falsifiable. In short, believe what you want, but the expectation that your belief is completely apparent and obvious is simply prideful behavior.

On the topic of what is natural. . . thousands of species engage in homosexuality. And thousands engage in incest, though most avoid it when possible. There is only one species that shames and judges its neighbors for their sexual behaviors. It wouldn't be hard to argue that Christian sexual teachings are unnatural.

I'm also curious about how the morality of incest in Christianity has been shaped given the vast amount of it within the Bible itself. . . I don't want to fall for the same trap I pointed out above and misrepresent Christians, but its very plainly in the Bible in black and white. Lot and his daughters, Abraham and Sarah, Adam and Eve, Noah. . .

Vox Clamantis said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I would be interested to know why this is such a passionate topic for you?

Do you perceive homosexuality to be a greater sin than others?

Is it worse than murder, theft or adultery.

I honestly don't know that it is and I say its no worse than lying.

Both are worthy of death.

As a married man I would find adultery a far worse sin as you have failed a sacrament.

Growing up Protestant being Gay was the worst thing you can be. As an Orthodox person I don't have the same perspective.

Just to jump ahead I don't have any gay family members and I am not gay myself so its not a stance based morality of mine.

---

It's not the sin of homosexual activity itself rather than how it's being used right now. It's the social issue dujour being used by Big Demon to try and confuse the faithful and splinter the church even further.

It's the issue causing the German church to once again flirt with outright heresy that ends up in schism, it may seem like a tempest in a teapot, but the white washing of homosexuality attacks the human person and our design at its very core. Where adultery and fornication are sins against temperance and chastity, which can be rightly ordered through discipline; homosexuality attacks the nature of man and the economy of the trinity.

So in short, homosexuality is the Trojan horse being used as a vehicle to attack the very foundation of the Church.

---

From an outside the church perspective . . .

How is prejudice being used right now? And greed? And hatred and judgement and pride?

Homosexuality is the social issue du jour because its a rallying point for conservative Christians. Its the 'sin' that many Christians aren't tempted toward, therefore, its the sin that can be piled onto while ignoring the other sins. There is nearly zero effort by conservative Christians to curb gluttony, or greed, or pride, or anger, or any of these other non-violent sins in any meaningful way. Sure, lip service is paid to the other sins, but that is all. Homosexuality is such a massive issue because its a political tool and because people tend to hate the 'sin' that isn't their own. This is exactly why those personal anecdotes about Christians with an LGBTQ loved one are so funny to me. They indicate a trend toward hatred of the thing we are ignorant of or distant from.

The foundations of the Church aren't under attack by homosexuality. At least not any more than it is by the excessive judgementalness, hypocrisy, arrogance, pride, greed, and abuses of power. The church's foundations are what they are because of its own self righteousness and because time and time again it fails to practice the compassion in preaches. This isn't a criticism of individual Christians.

Starving children, massive amounts of poverty, hateful rhetoric, corruption, lying, anger, hate, judgementalness, arrogance, greed, a military and prison industrial complex, . . . . . but, oh my God the gays!! This is why I have a hard time taking these posts seriously. Tell me what we should be doing to combat the massive corporate greed and huge wealth gaps. Tell me how we can educate poor children and give them opportunity. Tell me how to make our food healthier and how to hold food companies accountable for making addictive garbage food. Tell me how we treat others with acceptance and humility and compassion. Tell me how we combat the anger and hatred boiling over in this country and in the world. Don't tell me the foundations of your church our so weak that it cannot allow some people to love differently without bringing the whole thing down into shambles.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I don't see that your question has anything to do with homosexuality. So I'm a bit confused. Imagine a situation where an adopted boy grows up and meets his mother for the first time when she is past childbearing age. They fall in love. It's the exact same incest scenario where offspring and grooming aren't issues. But we don't use that example to say that men and women shouldn't be together.

I think you have a point that some morals, such as incest in the above scenarios, should go beyond harm and utilitarianism. No one is getting hurt and no deformed offspring are going to come from these unions, but most people would still want this to be illegal and wrong.

---

We're not the morally relativist ones. The scenario isn't tailored to us. I'm having to reach those people where they are. Believe me, if faced with a question on "why is incest wrong", I wouldn't need to contrive the scenario above to prove the point. "Parents shouldn't marry their kids" is self-evident. Unfortunately "men can't marry each other" used to be self evident as well.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

If gay marriage between consenting adults is ok, why isn't incestual marriage also ok?

Obviously the incest question has been used as a "gotcha" against gay marriage, when it is often an intellectually weak argument and not thought through, but I wanted to take a little time and develop the analogy and see if we can get to a spot where proponents have to rely on a "it's just ok, and that isn't"

So much of what frustrates me is the reverse engineering of morality based upon a personal anecdote which is unilaterally held as "ok". For example, I'm not going to name names, but there are some Catholics whose opinion on LGBTQ issues is flavored by an LGBTQ loved one. Rather than saying "based on my moral beliefs, or the set of moral beliefs I claim to adhere to, is my loved one living morally?" it is "There's no way my loved one can be doing anything bad, so they must be ok, and the teaching is wrong or needs to be nuanced".

So in my extremely gerrymandered scenario: a son who was given up for adoption meets his biological father for the first time at the age of 25. They fall madly in love, romantic "husband and wife" love. Stripped of any familial power dynamics, worries about malformed offspring, grooming or what have you, why is a standard run of the mill gay marriage/homosexual relationship ok, and this particular incestual relationship not?

For those that say this a very unlikely scenario which is used to paint all of the other vast vast majority of gay relationships in the same light, I bring up the abortion scenario. For so long we've heard the sad tale about the 14 year old girl who is raped by her father and is forced to bear his child in a pregnancy that will possibly kill or maim her, when that's a ridiculously contrived scenario used to gloss over the fact that 98% or so of abortions are done out of convenience.

For those that argue that 2% is still a hell of a lot more than whatever the prevalence of the scenario I describe is, I don't disagree, but that's still not addressing the morality of the question.

---

I think that it is a problem when we conflate justification for gay relationships with that of every and any other sexual practice you find problematic. The justifications and objections are different for homosexuality, transgenderism, bestiality, and incest. A justification for one does not automatically serve as an argument for all. Imagine I turned this thread around and asked you "Why is the Bible used to justify monogamy, but not used to justify owning slaves'? The answer is that even though the Bible discusses both, your reasoning and justifications vary. It would be disingenuous of me and a misrepresentation of your beliefs to assume that because you accept 'x' from the Bible at face value, that you must do the same for 'y' from the Bible.

I've constantly heard the argument from the anti-LGBTQ faction that 'well, if we let gays marry, then its a slippery slope and next thing you know we'll be marrying our pets. I recognize that there is a very small group of people that would be into marrying their pets, but its disingenuous to pretend the argument for gay marriage extends to anything or everything else.

The obvious objection to incest is the higher potential for genetic disorders. The next would be related to an inherent possible power imbalance and/or coercion between the parties involved. And then maybe a general concern about the emotional healthiness of such a relationship.

That said, ramblin's example above does a good job of addressing the main concern with a proposed scenario. The other concerns that I've listed are fairly universal concerns in any relationship - but perhaps just elevated in an incestual relationship. In other words, the concerns with incest can be applied to any other relationship. I think the biggest reason people oppose incest is cultural conditioning. Not that cultural conditioning is always bad.

If I were to compare how I evaluate the morality of incest to something else, I think I would go with pornography - let me explain. The pornography industry has a lot of bad actors, women get mistreated, people get mistreated, its often psychologically unhealthy, it can lead to addition, etc. etc. However, I would not say that pornography is automatically immoral. I can imagine a scenario where you had consenting individuals producing content outside of an abusive system and being consumed in way and in a quantity that is not damaging. I expect 75% of this board to disagree with that statement. And thats fine, I offer it in the interest of sharing opinions, not to convince you.

But, I see incest similarly. In practice, I think that most incest is usually unhealthy in some way, but not because I think they are automatically immoral. I think its usually problematic because of the risk of defect or coercion, or abusiveness, or because of some other factor involved.

In Ramblin's example, I think if the scenario were such that we had addressed all of the potential issues, I don't think I would say it was immoral. I find the idea of a mother and son together to be disturbing and bizarre and unsettling, but automatically immoral? I don't know that this is for us to judge.

Doesn't mean I'll ever stop finding it unsettling. . . but, why should my preferences matter when it comes to someone else? For example, my sister in law teaches her children that me, my wife, and my teenage boys will go to Hell and be tortured for eternity because we aren't Christians. I find that unsettling. I think it traumatic and unhealthy for her kids. I think its massively arrogant and judgmental. It has driven a wedge through the larger family structure. I have no shortage of reasons for why I disagree with my sister in law on this issue, but they are still her children and unless there is something overtly abusive, who am I to say she isn't permitted to give her children religious instruction as she sees fit?

The objection to homosexuality and incest posted in this thread that I've left out is appeal to God's design or argument that these things are 'unnatural'. I don't have any intention of criticizing anyone for holding those positions. But, to me, these arguments are opinions of flawed human beings without absolute knowledge trying their best at the impossible task of using their inadequate cognition to understand an impossibly infinite mind of a God who may or may not exist by reading and deciphering millennia old documentation written ages ago in different languages, cobbled together, and interpreted thousands of different ways because nothing in these claims is remotely falsifiable. In short, believe what you want, but the expectation that your belief is completely apparent and obvious is simply prideful behavior.

On the topic of what is natural. . . thousands of species engage in homosexuality. And thousands engage in incest, though most avoid it when possible. There is only one species that shames and judges its neighbors for their sexual behaviors. It wouldn't be hard to argue that Christian sexual teachings are unnatural.

I'm also curious about how the morality of incest in Christianity has been shaped given the vast amount of it within the Bible itself. . . I don't want to fall for the same trap I pointed out above and misrepresent Christians, but its very plainly in the Bible in black and white. Lot and his daughters, Abraham and Sarah, Adam and Eve, Noah. . .

---

I actually didn't bring up the bible, and kept things fairly a-religious except for an anecdote about Catholic social teaching to illustrate a related point, nor did I bring up the slippery slope argument.

With that being said, the main thrust of the argument is to identify the "nothing is inherently good or bad, but that is bad" people. Obviously, from the post above, you acknowledge this fact and attribute it to personal preference. That's my point. If you put things down to personal preference or cultural preference then the "ick factor" of a father and son being married, isn't germane to the question of the morality of such an arrangement.

I also think we need to understand we're viewing "nature" in different lenses. I'm using it with regard to the subject's design whose function logically follows. It wouldn't be "natural" for a mother to eat their children, regardless of whether such a behavior occurs in the observable universe. You referenced this above, but it doesn't need to be attributed to God. Ontology predates Christianity, as does the argument from design. A knife that won't cut is bad, not because God says it is, but because a knife's purpose is to cut. That's also not me imposing my "subjective preference for cutting" Aristotle didn't need St Thomas Aquinas to tell him that an acorn's purpose is to become a tree.

To your last paragraph, as Catholics we understand the bible to be multi-faceted. Much of it is a historical text, allegory, genealogy, cautionary tale, etc etc. All of it important and useful, provided it's received in the right manner.

We know that in the beginning certain practices were allowed out of necessity or because of the "hard heartedness" of the Jews. These stories don't stand on their own, they're meant to be understood in the light of the New Testament. Christ himself makes this argument when discussing divorce and how it wasn't ever really permitted, just tolerated because the Jews weren't in a place in their journey where they could comply with the law.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

No one is trying to tell people gluttony, arrogance, greed and other sins aren't sins. They may not be practically addressing them as much as you'd like, and to be honest it's difficult for a Catholic to be told "you actually need to be more judgmental", but the idea that they're sins, is well understood universally. You're calling us hypocrites while at the same time being a hypocrite. Essentially, we aren't being judgmental enough in ways you think are more important, and being too judgmental in ways you think that aren't.

Massive corporate Greed is an issue, the Church has released some of its most biting and pointed published teachings in the last two generations over the very issue of corporate greed, all while being the largest engine for charity in the entire world. Wander over to the political board over now and again and read the 9th weekly "The Pope is a marxist" thread. Much of your ire seems to be at evangelicals, which I myself share.

However, I cannot help but disagree with your entire premise. The Church is not a Red Cross, it's the body of Christ. Our mission is be the vehicle which takes a fallen soul and delivers it to heaven: not to educate the uneducated, not to feed the hungry, not to do any of the corporal works of Mercy; those are all PART of the mission, and not the mission itself.

---

This society spends a disproportionate amount of time talking about the 'sins' of the LGBTQ community and other sexual 'sins'. Its not that I think Christians (or Catholics) ought to be more judgemental, its that I think many Christians only choose to bring out the torches and pitchforks when it is not self incriminating. If anything, I would hope for ALL of us to be less judgemental.


Thats wonderful that the Church said that corporate greed is a problem. The most biting and pointed publishing in at least two generations!!!! Wow. What should I expect as a result? Fiery speeches from the pulpit about corporate greed? Condemnation throughout the American Christian landscape of inflated CEO salary and bonuses? Demands that the top 1% share their wealth or regulations against accumulating that kind of wealth? Christian-led marching in the street? Proposed legislation making the 'sin' of greed illegal the same way LGBTQ sins are openly condemned by Christians? Zero tolerance in schools for children who act 'greedy'?

What do you think is the best way for Christians to advocate against greed? If Christians advocate against LGBTQ persons by trying to pass legislation to restrict their rights, ban them from adoption, pass laws against their free speech, ban representation in books or schools and constant complain any time a gay person has any representation in the public square. . . I mean, this Church letter is the most biting Church letter in generations, surely it is a massive massive massive problem. Given how much time and effort Christians put into criticizing LGBTQ sexual deviancy, what dramatic overhauls should we expect from Christians relating to advocating against greed? Should we pass legislation to force corporations into certain pay scales? Ban greedy people from adopting children? Ostracize them and apply cancel culture to corporations in the form of boycotts? Given that this letter on corporate greed is the strongest worded letter in generations, can I expect Christians to advocate against and legislate against and try to affect cultural norms with the same fervency as they've fought against basic civil rights for LGBTQ persons?

What is the 'greed' equivalent of LGBTQ marches, pride month, or shows? Maybe owning an obscene house, decorating it head to toe in gold, driving absurdly expensive cars and private jets, wearing absurdly expensive clothes? Bragging about how wealthy you are? Of course middle and lower class people can be greedy also, its just that its harder to condemn a struggling family for saving a tiny bit of cash for a rainy day eventhough they could use it help someone else.

Again, I recognize that, on paper, Christians oppose these other 'sins'. I just don't ever see it. I only see obsession of the gays and the trans kids.

---------------

There has been an anti-LGBTQ thread at least once a month for the last 15 years. . . maybe even longer. I want to see a Christian start a thread about how sinful corporate greed is harming families, pulling families apart, and making it hard for people to start families. I want to see a Christian here start a thread about how it is sinful to look down at other people of different cultures and faith. About how there is sinfulness in pretending that we speak for God. And about how we should disagree with politicians using religion to accumulate power, wealth, and control. I want to see a Christian start a thread that suggests that tweeting hateful things about people that disagree with you is maybe not a good quality. I want to see a Christian here start a thread discussing victims that aren't Christian. I want to see a Christian start a thread advocating that Christians treat LGBTQ persons with dignity and respect. . . . rather than just say they ought to be treated with dignity and respect when pressed by someone else. If I'm wrong, then I'll apologize. But, in 15 or so years on this thread, there have been hundreds of threads about how the gays are destroying the country and maybe one or two about greed or corporate greed. . . . maybe?

Quote:

---

They may not be practically addressing them as much as you'd like . . .

---

Talk is cheap.

Quote:

---

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Time spent on teaching sexual ethics isn't taken from time spent feeding the hungry; charity is not a zero sum game.

---

Correct, but time spent teaching sexual ethics IS taken from time spent teaching against greed. And time spent lecturing others on their sexual practice IS taken from time spent understanding and feeling compassionate from those neighbors. That IS a zero sum game - what you choose to you your finite time advocating for.

Last comment - I don't mean for my post and my language to be quite as accusatory and judgemental as I'm sure it reads. My goal is to understand, from the Christian perspective, why the obsession over LGBTQ? And my goal is to argue, from a Christian perspective, that if you and I are guilty of other sins, maybe we should talk about them once in awhile also.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

No one is trying to tell people gluttony, arrogance, greed and other sins aren't sins. They may not be practically addressing them as much as you'd like, and to be honest it's difficult for a Catholic to be told "you actually need to be more judgmental", but the idea that they're sins, is well understood universally. You're calling us hypocrites while at the same time being a hypocrite. Essentially, we aren't being judgmental enough in ways you think are more important, and being too judgmental in ways you think that aren't.

Massive corporate Greed is an issue, the Church has released some of its most biting and pointed published teachings in the last two generations over the very issue of corporate greed, all while being the largest engine for charity in the entire world. Wander over to the political board over now and again and read the 9th weekly "The Pope is a marxist" thread. Much of your ire seems to be at evangelicals, which I myself share.

However, I cannot help but disagree with your entire premise. The Church is not a Red Cross, it's the body of Christ. Our mission is be the vehicle which takes a fallen soul and delivers it to heaven: not to educate the uneducated, not to feed the hungry, not to do any of the corporal works of Mercy; those are all PART of the mission, and not the mission itself.

---

This society spends a disproportionate amount of time talking about the 'sins' of the LGBTQ community and other sexual 'sins'. Its not that I think Christians (or Catholics) ought to be more judgemental, its that I think many Christians only choose to bring out the torches and pitchforks when it is not self incriminating. If anything, I would hope for ALL of us to be less judgemental.


Thats wonderful that the Church said that corporate greed is a problem. The most biting and pointed publishing in at least two generations!!!! Wow. What should I expect as a result? Fiery speeches from the pulpit about corporate greed? Condemnation throughout the American Christian landscape of inflated CEO salary and bonuses? Demands that the top 1% share their wealth or regulations against accumulating that kind of wealth? Christian-led marching in the street? Proposed legislation making the 'sin' of greed illegal the same way LGBTQ sins are openly condemned by Christians? Zero tolerance in schools for children who act 'greedy'?

What do you think is the best way for Christians to advocate against greed? If Christians advocate against LGBTQ persons by trying to pass legislation to restrict their rights, ban them from adoption, pass laws against their free speech, ban representation in books or schools and constant complain any time a gay person has any representation in the public square. . . I mean, this Church letter is the most biting Church letter in generations, surely it is a massive massive massive problem. Given how much time and effort Christians put into criticizing LGBTQ sexual deviancy, what dramatic overhauls should we expect from Christians relating to advocating against greed? Should we pass legislation to force corporations into certain pay scales? Ban greedy people from adopting children? Ostracize them and apply cancel culture to corporations in the form of boycotts? Given that this letter on corporate greed is the strongest worded letter in generations, can I expect Christians to advocate against and legislate against and try to affect cultural norms with the same fervency as they've fought against basic civil rights for LGBTQ persons?

What is the 'greed' equivalent of LGBTQ marches, pride month, or shows? Maybe owning an obscene house, decorating it head to toe in gold, driving absurdly expensive cars and private jets, wearing absurdly expensive clothes? Bragging about how wealthy you are? Of course middle and lower class people can be greedy also, its just that its harder to condemn a struggling family for saving a tiny bit of cash for a rainy day eventhough they could use it help someone else.

Again, I recognize that, on paper, Christians oppose these other 'sins'. I just don't ever see it. I only see obsession of the gays and the trans kids.

---------------

There has been an anti-LGBTQ thread at least once a month for the last 15 years. . . maybe even longer. I want to see a Christian start a thread about how sinful corporate greed is harming families, pulling families apart, and making it hard for people to start families. I want to see a Christian here start a thread about how it is sinful to look down at other people of different cultures and faith. About how there is sinfulness in pretending that we speak for God. And about how we should disagree with politicians using religion to accumulate power, wealth, and control. I want to see a Christian start a thread that suggests that tweeting hateful things about people that disagree with you is maybe not a good quality. I want to see a Christian here start a thread discussing victims that aren't Christian. I want to see a Christian start a thread advocating that Christians treat LGBTQ persons with dignity and respect. . . . rather than just say they ought to be treated with dignity and respect when pressed by someone else. If I'm wrong, then I'll apologize. But, in 15 or so years on this thread, there have been hundreds of threads about how the gays are destroying the country and maybe one or two about greed or corporate greed. . . . maybe?

Quote:

---

They may not be practically addressing them as much as you'd like . . .

---

Talk is cheap.

Quote:

---

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Time spent on teaching sexual ethics isn't taken from time spent feeding the hungry; charity is not a zero sum game.

---

Correct, but time spent teaching sexual ethics IS taken from time spent teaching against greed. And time spent lecturing others on their sexual practice IS taken from time spent understanding and feeling compassionate from those neighbors. That IS a zero sum game - what you choose to you your finite time advocating for.

Last comment - I don't mean for my post and my language to be quite as accusatory and judgemental as I'm sure it reads. My goal is to understand, from the Christian perspective, why the obsession over LGBTQ? And my goal is to argue, from a Christian perspective, that if you and I are guilty of other sins, maybe we should talk about them once in awhile also.

---

You make a lot of good points as usual. I think the reason you see more of a push back against homosexuality vs other sin is because there is a concentrated effort within the "church" to affirm the lifestyle.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

With that being said, the main thrust of the argument is to identify the "nothing is inherently good or bad, but that is bad" people. Obviously, from the post above, you acknowledge this fact and attribute it to personal preference. That's my point. If you put things down to personal preference or cultural preference then the "ick factor" of a father and son being married, isn't germane to the question of the morality of such an arrangement.

---

As I've said many times on this board, believing in an objective morality from God does not solve this problem unless you possess perfect God-like knowledge of good and evil. Without that perfect knowledge, you identify the texts and teachings which you feel are credible and interpret those texts and teachings. Or you understand God's objective will through subjective experience. How you determine what is credible or not is imperfect / preference / opinion / subjective. And how you interpret those texts and teachings is imperfect / preference / opinion / subjective. What ever words you want to use there is fine. The point is that even if objective morality exists, I don't see how you can argue that it is accessible to us without running through the same issues of preference.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

You make a lot of good points as usual. I think the reason you see more of a push back against homosexuality vs other sin is because there is a concentrated effort within the "church" to affirm the lifestyle.

---

Understood, but shouldn't that be dealt with internally to the churches?

If (or where) there are examples of people outside of the church trying to force Christians to change their religious doctrine to accept homosexuality, then I'm on your side.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Not just the church, but society in general.

What other sin has pride parades? The closest thing I can think of is the "Shout Your Abortion" feminists, but they're a fringe movement compared to the people who bring out rainbow stuff in June.

---

How about Mardi Gras? Literally a party / parade that occurs in multiple countries to indulge in glutony, sex, and excess before Lent. Las Vegas is nearly an entire city built around the attraction of greed, lust, pride, and excess. There are plenty of equivalents and I don't think you should discard those examples simply because they don't look identical to a gay pride parade.

American society is saturated with vanity and pride - look at how much plastic surgery people get, influencer culture, reality tv, social media, the amount of money and effort people spend on cars, clothes, and houses so that they can impress others. American tv, media, entertainment, advertisement is a year round parade in vanity and pride.

We can do the same for greed. Or apathy and indifference. Or dishonesty. Or any other sin.

Again, I'm not arguing that Christians ought to go after all of these sins the same way. I am arguing that 'but the gays have a parade' is a weak argument in a society which is a non-stop parade of every other sin - many of which Christians actively and openly participate in - they just don't condemn the other sins with the same energy and intensity and dogma.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

With that being said, the main thrust of the argument is to identify the "nothing is inherently good or bad, but that is bad" people. Obviously, from the post above, you acknowledge this fact and attribute it to personal preference. That's my point. If you put things down to personal preference or cultural preference then the "ick factor" of a father and son being married, isn't germane to the question of the morality of such an arrangement.

---

As I've said many times on this board, believing in an objective morality from God does not solve this problem unless you possess perfect God-like knowledge of good and evil. Without that perfect knowledge, you identify the texts and teachings which you feel are credible and interpret those texts and teachings. Or you understand God's objective will through subjective experience. How you determine what is credible or not is imperfect / preference / opinion / subjective. And how you interpret those texts and teachings is imperfect / preference / opinion / subjective. What ever words you want to use there is fine. The point is that even if objective morality exists, I don't see how you can argue that it is accessible to us without running through the same issues of preference.

---

That's fine. That's your opinion, all I'm saying is that the contrived scenario I picked was to get you to the point of morally "there's no reason why a son shouldn't be able to marry a father". Which you happily embraced.

You also don't need to have a perfect knowledge of good and evil. You just have to trust that God has a perfect knowledge of Good and Evil, and that's he's given us the tools to decipher which is which for ourselves. As a Catholic we also believe that God himself has entrusted a body to help us work through these things, until he returns, but again that's not an absolute necessity. The inefficiency of tools doesn't betray the work they actually perform. Our subjective praxis doesn't negate the objectivity.

So what we've gotten to is "there is no such thing as good or evil, but what you're doing is definitely evil"

I'm not saying that your feelings are wrong about the Catholic Church, I'm saying that they're internally inconsistent because you claim that wrong doesn't exist.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Not just the church, but society in general.

What other sin has pride parades? The closest thing I can think of is the "Shout Your Abortion" feminists, but they're a fringe movement compared to the people who bring out rainbow stuff in June.

---

How about Mardi Gras? Literally a party / parade that occurs in multiple countries to indulge in glutony, sex, and excess before Lent. Las Vegas is nearly an entire city built around the attraction of greed, lust, pride, and excess. There are plenty of equivalents and I don't think you should discard those examples simply because they don't look identical to a gay pride parade.

American society is saturated with vanity and pride - look at how much plastic surgery people get, influencer culture, reality tv, social media, the amount of money and effort people spend on cars, clothes, and houses so that they can impress others. American tv, media, entertainment, advertisement is a year round parade in vanity and pride.

We can do the same for greed. Or apathy and indifference. Or dishonesty. Or any other sin.

Again, I'm not arguing that Christians ought to go after all of these sins the same way. I am arguing that 'but the gays have a parade' is a weak argument in a society which is a non-stop parade of every other sin - many of which Christians actively and openly participate in - they just don't condemn the other sins with the same energy and intensity and dogma.

---

I would have to agree with you. I also think Christians are very lenient, to the point of not even realizing it, about second marriages.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

You make a lot of good points as usual. I think the reason you see more of a push back against homosexuality vs other sin is because there is a concentrated effort within the "church" to affirm the lifestyle.

---

Understood, but shouldn't that be dealt with internally to the churches?

If (or where) there are examples of people outside of the church trying to force Christians to change their religious doctrine to accept homosexuality, then I'm on your side.

---

Both internally and externally. The church has many roles, but a primary one is to proclaim the gospel to the whole world. There has been a radical shift when if comes to the acceptance/affirmation of homosexuality in the past few decades, and I believe the church has a duty to push back against that.

To your second point, there are a ton of examples of people trying to force Christians to accept homosexuality. We aren't quite there yet as far as the legal authority to do so is concerned, but it certainly appears to be trending that direction. I remember several pastors in Houston were investigated and had their records subpoenaed for preaching against homosexuality not too long ago.

"there is a concentrated effort within the "church" to affirm the lifestyle."

This is an opinion formed in a bubble. That is why I believe meeting people, family, and friends who are same-sex attracted AND who seek full participation in the life of the Church (in my case the Roman Catholic Church) is the key toward a more pastoral approach.

For a time and for some still today, it is seen as a lifestyle choice not unlike what you decide to wear today. It can be easily changed with just the right counseling some would argue. After all there is no gay gene!

Precisely because we are talking about love. What kind of love is the question and the answer to the other relationships presented (incest, bestiality). For the Christian seeking God, we turn to scripture and tradition for insight. How many of us have heard well meaning good people twist scripture into a hammer used to crush the children of God? When Sodom and Gomorra are the proof texts despite their obvious description of sexual violence- what is one to do?

We are living in a time, I believe, where those passages are being reexamined in light of the scientific evidence that it is not a random choice. As it should, because what we do know is that faith and reason are in harmony. That the German Catholic Church has moved ahead is not surprising. That the Catholic Church and Catholic theologians are also reevaluating doctrine (not dogma) is how the church operates in time.

To my fellow Catholics concerned about some "Trojan Horse" intent on destruction- know and believe that Jesus is with us always until the end of time. You should know how this all ends, with Christ coming down from heaven amid a chorus of angels. The church will always be around until the end of time. It is each of us that need to look inward. All this you know.

ETA: I meant to frame the RCC's and the German Catholic church's effort as updating the pastoral approach for people with same sex attraction not some attempt to normalize sin.

Vox Clamantis said:

---

That's fine. That's your opinion, all I'm saying is that the contrived scenario I picked was to get you to the point of morally "there's no reason why a son shouldn't be able to marry a father". Which you happily embraced.

---

Why do you think its fair to say I happily embraced it? I very clearly stated that I found it " disturbing and bizarre and unsettling" and that in probably just about any case, its an unhealthy relationship for some reason or another. I don't embrace incest. I reluctantly accept that there may be potential cases where I shouldn't judge it as immoral.

Quote:

---

You also don't need to have a perfect knowledge of good and evil. You just have to trust that God has a perfect knowledge of Good and Evil, and that's he's given us the tools to decipher which is which for ourselves. As a Catholic we also believe that God himself has entrusted a body to help us work through these things, until he returns, but again that's not an absolute necessity. The inefficiency of tools doesn't betray the work they actually perform. Our subjective praxis doesn't negate the objectivity.

---

I appreciate the argument that an unavoidable imperfect human understanding does not invalidate the existence of objective truth. And I think perhaps it sounds like we agree that it may invalidate the possibility of perfect application of that truth by imperfect humans.

What I object to here is the idea that the accuracy of our application of objective truth can be so trivialized. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it almost feels like you are saying that it doesn't matter if knowledge of objective good and evil is wildly mis-applied as long as we believe that it exists. It feels like saying "It doesn't matter how wrong we act, as long as we believe we are right."

Mainstream Christians throughout history (like everyone else) are guilty of every atrocity possible. Should this be accepted as a feature of the system or lamented as a bug? And you can only place blame on imperfect humans and Christians for mis applying the correct objective morality for so long until you have to grapple with the following question: If there is God who is perfect and all knowing. . . and created us as we are and fully understands our short comings and imperfections. . . . and God is the one who communicates his will to us, then how do we reconcile a thousand years of sincere Christians endorsing slavery? Or Colonialism? Or church sanctioned murder, rape, and theft? Either those tools we are given to decipher are inadequate or the communications we are given is inadequate. Its not enough to believe an objective standard exists if we these objective truths are this inaccessible to us.

Quote:

---

So what we've gotten to is "there is no such thing as good or evil, but what you're doing is definitely evil"

I'm not saying that your feelings are wrong about the Catholic Church, I'm saying that they're internally inconsistent because you claim that wrong doesn't exist.

---

That is a mischaracterization of what I think. Here is what I would say:

There could be an objective morality. But, in practice, all of our understandings of moral good and bad are subjectively understood. For me to say something is evil or wrong is to state an opinion and not to proclaim an objective truth. There is no inconsistency with me saying something is wrong as a matter of my opinion or from my perspective.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

You make a lot of good points as usual. I think the reason you see more of a push back against homosexuality vs other sin is because there is a concentrated effort within the "church" to affirm the lifestyle.

---

Understood, but shouldn't that be dealt with internally to the churches?

If (or where) there are examples of people outside of the church trying to force Christians to change their religious doctrine to accept homosexuality, then I'm on your side.

---

Both internally and externally. The church has many roles, but a primary one is to proclaim the gospel to the whole world. There has been a radical shift when if comes to the acceptance/affirmation of homosexuality in the past few decades, and I believe the church has a duty to push back against that.

To your second point, there are a ton of examples of people trying to force Christians to accept homosexuality. We aren't quite there yet as far as the legal authority to do so is concerned, but it certainly appears to be trending that direction. I remember several pastors in Houston were investigated and had their records subpoenaed for preaching against homosexuality not too long ago.

---

Push back in what sense? By voicing your beliefs and allowing people to decide for themselves? Or through force or government to ensure that those with different beliefs are given reduced rights and reduced access to the public discussion? I'm fine with the former. Not with the latter.

Yes, there is plenty of pressure on Christianity to accept homosexuality. But I think that we have to differentiate between pressure applied through discussion and debate versus pressure applied through force or legal action.

Assuming you believe that Christians should 'push back' against homosexuality without force or coercion, than I am going to argue that every other group with their own system of beliefs should have equal opportunity to 'push' their social agenda in the same way.

I don't think you are saying this. . . . but if someone were to say that Christians should promote their beliefs, but others should not be permitted to push for consideration of their own beliefs. . . this is a person who does not believe in freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And if that is someone's position, then okay, but lets be honest and out with it.

From a Christian perspective, it seems that most Christians believe that we are all given free will to accept or reject Christ's message. Would it not be a violation of something sacred and God given for a Christian to try to coerce or force someone toward one decision or another. I understand your concern about my soul. But, its my soul. Not yours.

I don't know the details on the pastors in Houston. Its very possible that this is a legitimate example of overreach and one where I would support your objections. Should I now give examples of where Christians have used force to mistreat homosexuals? Or can we skip that?

Yes, by voicing our beliefs. Definitely not saying it should be illegal to be gay or practice homosexuality.

And everyone gets equal access toward voicing their opinions in the public square?

Of course.