Should the Catholic Church Allow Homosexual Marriage?

Should the Catholic Church Allow Homosexual Marriage?
🔴 Watch My Free Webinar: perspective-philosophy.ck.pag...
🔴 Check out my free Philosophy course: • Free Philosophy Course...
📚📚Comprehensive courses📚📚:
Introduction to Western Philosophy:
perspective-philosophy.teacha...
Introduction to Metaphysics and Epistemology:
perspective-philosophy.teacha...
Introduction to Ethics and Politics:
perspective-philosophy.teacha...
Patreon:
/ perspectivephilosophy
TIP JAR 💰 streamelements.com/perspectiv...
Book recommendations📚 www.amazon.co.uk/shop/perspec...
Discord: / discord

[@AV-kc7oh]

I’ve been trying to follow your catholic arc after subscribing to you for vegan debates…with your beliefs and morality I wonder why bother attaching yourself to a dogma rather than an evidence based belief system i.e. just not being religious? I wonder if I’m missing something?

[@Cancellator5000]

Yeah, I wonder if moral objectivism leads you more towards religion. I don't know if I've fully understood why morality can be objective. I see the potential utility in it being objective, but that isn't proof that it can be.

[@scottmoore7588]

Very strange that you seem to feel that we owe society something when it comes to who we get into a romantic relationship with and if we have children. I would say that we don’t owe society anything, but if we did, the only thing I could possibly imagine would be just treating them with basic human dignity and rights. It’s very strange though to think that people owe society children. Very strange indeed. I’m pretty sure no parent has ever told their child that they had them “for society lol”. Most people have children simply because they want to have children. Not sure how that’s difficult to understand.

[@harryevans4513]

I don't have a good enough grasp of the concept to explain it, but you did not understand his stance (I also misinterpret his stance many times before having a moment where it clicks what he's trying to say)

[@scottmoore7588]

@@harryevans4513 Well how convenient for you to just make a claim without doing anything to substantiate it. I could've perfectly understood his stance, and still anyone could make the claim that I didn't understand it. If you're not gonna do anything to explain to me what I misunderstood, then I'm really not sure why you felt it was productive to leave the comment at all. You might've well have just said "You're wrong lol". That's basically all that your comment amounted to. Do you have anything productive to say?

[@harryevans4513]

@@scottmoore7588 I just wanted to point out a similarity to my own experience. I didn't intend to show you as being wrong. As I said, I do not have a good enough grasp of the concept yet and I am interested in understanding it. If you find my comment being unproductive, you may as well just ignore it.

[@scottmoore7588]

@@harryevans4513 If it wasn't your intention to show me as being wrong, then I'm not sure where you get off thinking you get to tell me that I've misunderstood his stance. This would be like a teacher telling their student they got a question wrong, and then when the student asks the teacher to explain where they went wrong, the teacher goes "Lol nah".

[@harryevans4513]

@@scottmoore7588 okay, my bad in not expressing clearly. I should've said maybe you didn't understand instead indicating it as a possibility instead of an assertion

[@scottmoore7588]

I haven’t finished the video but I’m hoping his answer is that yes, the Catholic Church and really any institution should allow gay marriage, at least if that institution is in the US, where, you know, _gay marriage has been completely legalized._

[@Snoopy-apollo]

Legality has nothing to do with it, see errors 68, 69 and 74 in the syllabus of errors

[@Kleithap]

Where is the limit to reinterpreting the Bible if we accept things which are explicitly condemned by scripture? If we make up the rules what need is there for God-given morality?

[@okaynope5197]

Why would there need to be a limit at all? Why are your ethics so rigid? just because something is inspired by God, it doesn't mean that everything in it is perfect or perfectly worded.

[@Kleithap]

@@okaynope5197 if there is no limit and if we decide what is moral we may as well discard the Bible and religious authority/morality. That just amounts to subjective morality.

[@okaynope5197]

@@Kleithap Just because you reject the bible does not mean it amounts to subjective morality. Honestly the whole subjective vs objective argument coming from the religious side are such ill formed "gotcha" statements amounting to nothing of actual meaning. Using the bible as a source of inspiration is still certainly possible while being critical of it's text. You would essentially just prioritize it as a means of instigating ethical discussion as opposed to reading it as rigidly as a child would. This is why religions fail in the modern era, they are far too ethically sticky and in a rapidly changing world they quickly have dwindled to irrelevance in people's minds.

[@Kleithap]

@@okaynope5197 you’re making a pragmatic argument which has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the Bible. I strongly disagree also with your stance on objectivity vs subjectivity. But I’m not interested in hashing out those arguments with you now. I take it you’re not a Catholic? My post was a critique from a Catholic perspective. Obviously if you don’t agree with Catholicism or Christianity to begin with you wouldn’t care that much about what the Bible says regarding homosexuality. However for people that are Catholic it is hard to ignore. Hence my critique.

[@okaynope5197]

@Kleithap Well yes, actually I'm no longer religious at all because I find religions to nearly always be the type you espouse. Obsessing over rigid lines and rejecting critical thinking towards major questions. But, by true here with the Bible, I take it that you mean that it is inerrantly true? That position, I think, is just completely absurd and even debunked by the text itself, where it contradicts itself on several occasions. The phrase "the Bible is inspired by God" is certainly the only reasonable position to hold.

[@ZioBlader]

I'd bet that with this view you could get Trent Horn interested in debating you (which would provide a stepping stone towards a veganism-debate).

[@bronsonvann2662]

So regarding the homosexual couple's adopting children, if it were the case that there was some detriment to children compared to being raised in a heterosexual environment (ex. mothers teach the child fine motor skills, fathers teach the child gross motor skills, or mothers better teach sociability whereas fathers better teach independence), would that mean they shouldn't adopt? It would seem like even in a circumstance where the home is not the most ideal is still better than having no parents in the adoption system.

[@Cancellator5000]

Yeah, I'd guess so. We also know that there must be some distribution. There are heterosexual couples who would be worse than average and homosexual couples who would be better than average. It would be impossible to determine who should and shouldn't adopt based on that alone, but there is no evidence on average that there's a difference. There might be more significant differences based on income, whether or not one of the parents has plenty of time with the kids, etc. So, tons of objective facts people can use to make a sound decision on whether or not it's rationally sound to adopt.

[@maltesefalconpunch2804]

Neither of my parents taught me any of that shit. So…yea.

[@Synodalian]

Mark S. Massa's _The Structure of Theological Revolutions_ really nails how contentious and ambiguous Catholic doctrine (ex: _Humanae Vitae)_ really is, particularly when it comes to how historical foundations of scholasticism develop in light of new philosophical and scientific discoveries. The conclusion of the book implies that even the Thomistic tradition of natural law remains incomplete in its metaphysical assumptions and requires a more robust and comprehensive systematic philosophy in the future to provide proper reconstruction and justification for Catholic positions on issues like this. I believe that Hegel (as demonstrated through theologians like Stephen Theron, Peter C. Hodgson, Jordan Daniel Wood and Ryan Haecker) provides exactly that alternative to Aquinas, going _beyond_ mere Aristotelian natural law towards a truly concrete Spirit.

[@zeebpc]

started a Christianity grift to escape obscurity and it backfired hard.

[@Johnston.Carliferanda]

I love that you are both respectful to Catholic tenets and progressive in applying them. Very different from all those Churches that fly the rainbow flag without a second thought.

[@LeeMichaelWalton]

I agree 100% with Perspective Philosophy. Being told that your own sexual orientation by its very nature is a sin and means you should deprive yourself of a fulfilling, loving sexual and romantic relationship is a very cruel position to take. I know many Christians who celebrate the marriages of their gay friends and family members. This is beautiful.

[@jackkentner158]

Then they are celebrating sin. Why does sin have to be celebrated? Why are Christians obligated to recognize gay unions as marriage?

[@LeeMichaelWalton]

@@jackkentner158 believe what you want to believe. It’s just your view. The rest of us will not let you dictate to us. We can celebrate if we want to. There’s nothing you can do about us having our own opinions and lives.

[@x-b5516]

Great ❤

[@KWG-ln4on]

The whole issue is by far not as controversial as it seems, and even the answer to your question is easier than many people think. I admit, I haven't watched the entire video, so I don't know your conclusion. The main problem is, that a vast majority of people see Christianity, or Catholicism, or religions in general solely as moral institutions. If you see it merely this way, the answer to your question in the title should be "yes", without a doubt. But the point is, that religions are first of all NOT moral institutions, but systems for spiritual guidance, attaining self-knowledge, and finally re-unification with the Divine. The ethic and moral changes, which accompany a spiritual path are essential by-products and are already effects of the change that come automatically. This is the MAIN purpose of religions, though only few people practice them this way, mainly nuns, monks or so called spiritual seekers. It's one of the worst misunderstandings, that you have to be a nice boy or girl to be a Christian. Be as you are, but practice contemplation etc. The moral changes come as an effect. So the question should actually be: CAN the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church allow same-sex marriage? And the answer is simply: it can't. Even if it wanted. Not because of homophobia, but because marriage is a sacrament in the traditional churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental) it obligatory requires two opposites, like Yin and Yang, like + and - or like N and S in a magnet. You can't unite Yin and Yin on a spiritual, esoteric level. THAT's the reason, why it is impossible. The Protestants can do so, but not because they're more progressive. On the contrary. Because they had lost the spiritual, mystical or esoteric dimension of many rituals, including marriage. They had become merely moral institutions, which of course does not mean, that a Protestant can't go the spiritual path. But for the Protestants matrimony is just a simple official act without this "cosmic" or esoteric dimension, it's not a sacrament. Therefore there can be only blessings for homosexual couples in the traditional churches, but no marriage. A marriage would be like connecting two magnetic south poles. It's that simple. There's nothing homophobic about it, it's purely technical. It's simply "energetically" impossible and would be invalid if performed nevertheless. Unfortunately hardly any theologian would explain it to you this way, as the esoteric basics of Christianity aren't part of academic theology education. Only experienced and spiritually educated monks or mystics know such things. So: catholic or orthodox same-sex couples either have to convert to Protestantism or be satisfied with the blessings. If you ask me, I would choose the latter combined with a civil marriage.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

Homosexual "marriage" is an anthropological category error, it's not a matter of degree. There's no blessed eros in a homosexual couple because they can't also have a union. Also, ehat thr Church says in thr catechism isn't that homosexuality isn't a choice, it withholds judgment on it and rules that it's inconsequential because what's condemned is the activity as intrinsically disordered

[@matthewsocoollike]

Hope you hold the same for straight people who can’t have kids

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

The order or disorder is specifically what is being discussed relative to a consideration of natural law. What it is and how we derive it.

[@b.melakail]

Hi. First time coming across you. Are you a vegan, socialist, Catholic?

[@harryevans4513]

Yes he's all of the 3

[@b.melakail]

@@harryevans4513 fascinating

[@harryevans4513]

@@b.melakail yeah, he was agnostic when I started watching his channel in 2022 (primarily for the ethics of veganism), then he read more arguments for God and became Catholic again (he was brought up as one)

[@b.melakail]

@harryevans4513 happy for him as a fellow Catholic. I understand the vegan part since many of the church fathers were vegetarian but I don't understand the socialist part. Maybe you have a recommendation of a video of his that I should watch for the socialist case?

[@harryevans4513]

@@b.melakail so recently what I've heard in his live streams is that he's not sure about how the economic side works as he lacks deep knowledge there, but he has been in support of market socialism in past videos and as far as I understand, his stance comes from morality.

[@prane1874]

Because being sterile isn’t a direct impediment on the natural end of sex while homosexual acts are. Literally just read the entirety of Humanae Vitae to realize you’re speaking heresy. “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)” Homosexuality and procreation are direct impediments of the procreative intention of the act (unlike a lack of fertility, which is just a lack of quality rather than an intentional impediment) and therefore are naturally morally evil. We know the sin occurs from directly avoiding the procreative act, since the church also condemns intentional sterilization: “Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)” I can how you 30 more quotes or you can just read it. This document by the way is magisterially binding and thus should be obeyed. The church has always taught even in previous documents that directly impeding the natural procreative act is never okay, and it especially taught (even by pope francis) that marriage is between a man and woman “The Church has a very clear understanding of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to procreation. Only this union can be called "marriage." Other forms of union realize it only in "a partial and analogous way" (Amoris Laetitia 292), so they cannot be strictly called "marriage."

[@jamesbarels469]

Why should a genocidal philosophy be telling others what to do?

[@mmhmm9271]

Genocidal?

[@jackkentner158]

Why do you care what the “genocidal” philosophy believes to be marriage and force them to recognize it?

[@Snoopy-apollo]

you should delete this video and go to confession for posting it

[@hieldjiv]

You are a prime example of why religion is so pathetic and beneath him

[@agaphtos]

Imo it comes down to what your authority is. If we believe the bible is actually God's Word, and truly breathed out by him, then there is no debate to be had. 1 Corinthians 6:9 clearly condemns both homosexual partners, and there is also Romans 1:27, Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

Word vs words of God. There is huge room for interpretation and explication of its fundamental meaning, not just the words taken literally.

[@okaynope5197]

I find it very strange the weight placed on the words of Paul and Moses. Like why is there the assumption that these people are inerrant scribes of God in the first place even if you accept that the bible was inspired by God?

[@agaphtos]

@@okaynope5197 Jesus treated Moses' words as being from God, like in Matthew 22:29-33, and if the man who died and rose again treated Scripture this way, then I will too. Peter also refers to Paul's words as Scripture, and all of the letters have been historically accepted by the church as authoritative.

[@okaynope5197]

@@agaphtos Sure but that kind of just back tracks trust to another person like Peter or church fathers. Biblical passages are treated above virtually anything else while i very much doubt that if you were a Christian listening to Paul that you would have been so adamant about the words of a man in front of you. There's something magical in people's brains about the fact that it is ancient and written down and called the word of God to be placed in a single canon work that makes people irrational about it.

[@agaphtos]

@@okaynope5197 Yeah if you think we regard it as the word of God just because it's ancient and written down then I would agree with you. But this is a misconception. From the Christian perspective, the writers were driven along by God to write what they did, so it is not simply the words of mere men.

[@Quint-ib4nf]

Yes they should.

[@TKK0812]

Two homosexuals cannot be in a loving relationship. God defines "love" and is more importantly, love itself. 1 Cor 13:6 / Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth By what standard do we judge what is good and what is evil? Scripture. Homosexuality is an abomination before God, therefor it is evil and is by definition, not loving.