• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope

I can only assume that the logic is that if everyone was homosexual, and there was no "dick-in-vag" conception, then humanity would die.

Since the church is against IV fertilization and the like, this isn't a large leap in thought.
 
Samhain said:
I can only assume that the logic is that if everyone was homosexual, and there was no "dick-in-vag" conception, then humanity would die.

Since the church is against IV fertilization and the like, this isn't a large leap in thought.
Click to expand...

but that would require
1.) all of humanity to be gay
2.) all of humanity that is gay to no longer care about humanity and let themselves die and not give birth other ways?

and not saying YOU agree that it is a threat but even in some fantasy world if 1 and 2 became true it would still have nothing to do with gay marriage.
 
Objective-J said:
but that would require
1.) all of humanity to be gay
2.) all of humanity that is gay to no longer care about humanity and let themselves die and not give birth other ways?

and not saying YOU agree that it is a threat but even in some fantasy world if 1 and 2 became true it would still have nothing to do with gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I think that's the point.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
From Reuters.com:

Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope | Reuters

In other words, Pope Benedict is desperate because same-sex relationships and families are becoming more accepted. Such acceptance is based on people becoming more familiar with gay individuals through personal experience, the media and studies that disprove myths about them. Because those myths are easily disproved with tangible evidence, Benedict has realized that he must try to scare people into agreeing with him by appealing to more vague and subjective concepts like "dignity" and "promotion of family" and "social cohesion".

Frankly, Benedict is moving the church backwards as this ridiculousness undermines its increased embracing of scientific inquiry in modern history by basing arguments about measurable realities, like the effect of same-sex parenting on children, on nonsense rather than research. By making these comments, he's likely just going to alienate more Catholics, thereby continuing to make the Church its own worst enemy. One would think that after its child sex abuse scandal, it would take a dose of humility. Guess not.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Pope is moving the Church backward; seems to me that he's keeping it right where it is. Most Catholics aren't going to disagree with him that ""The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states...."

In fact, I don't think most people generally disagree with the concept of the family unit being fundamental to society. Where they may sincerely disagree is in what defines "family unit."
 
misterman said:
I think that's the point.
Click to expand...

it is the point, at least its my point, gay marriage has ZERO impact when it comes to "threatening society"
 
Objective-J said:
it is the point, at least its my point, gay marriage has ZERO impact when it comes to "threatening society"
Click to expand...
It's a pretty sissy society that gets threatened by a bunch of sissies. Just sayin'.:mrgreen:
 
German guy said:
For the same reason you have to explain to the 5 year old why a guy and a gal are kissing in Walmart, maybe?
Click to expand...

The child, in this case female and according to the natural order of things, has to know what a man and woman are doing. Again, it is the natural order of things. It is how we survive as a species.

Two men kissing, do you look away?

Do you understand why normal people find homosexuality repulsive? It's not an accident.
 
Andalublue said:
It's a pretty sissy society that gets threatened by a bunch of sissies. Just sayin'.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

agreed and unfortunately theres lots of mental sissies in America today.
 
ric27 said:
The child, in this case female and according to the natural order of things, has to know what a man and woman are doing. Again, it is the natural order of things. It is how we survive as a species.

Two men kissing, do you look away?

Do you understand why normal people find homosexuality repulsive? It's not an accident.
Click to expand...

thats a nice opinion but thats all it is

theres people out there that find a black person and white person kissing repulsive?
fat and ugly people kissing repulsive?
Dogs and Cats living in your house could be repulsive!

hell theres people out there that find a woman boss repulsive!

should we not allow any of those things either

whats you point? Logical you have none.
 
Wessexman said:
But that definition wouldn't include the Pope.
Click to expand...

Pope is fundi. For one, he wears a funny hat. Robes... c'mon.


Andalublue said:
... it lacks dogma. The beauty of it is that it is an entirely personal journey, you can accept or reject almost any aspect of the teachings and no one will be condemning you or telling you that you are not a proper Buddhist. It is a practice and a search for truth, for how existence really is. You can avoid or seek out any sources of information on Buddhism you wish and agree with it or reject it according to how your heart and mind receive it.

There is no idea that any of the scriptures are inerrant or divinely ordained. They are collections of wisdom to be received, pondered and used in one's practice if one finds them helpful...
Click to expand...

That's how I take Christianity. I was a militant atheist, now I'm metaphysical expression friendly. I learned a lot.
 
ecofarm said:
That's how I take Christianity. I was a militant atheist, now I'm metaphysical expression friendly. I learned a lot.
Click to expand...
Good for you! I'm sure you already know this, but of course it is not incompatible for a Buddhist to believe in God, creation, sin etc. but it's just that these concepts don't feature in Buddhist philosophy. I can't think of any reason why a Christian couldn't accept the Four Noble Truths.
  1. Life is dhukka - roughly, suffering. We are born, age, get ill and die.
  2. The cause of suffering is craving; craving for wealth, gratification, life.
  3. That there can be a cessation to suffering, to craving, and to reliance on it.
  4. The way to release oneself from it is by the Eightfold Path.
I'm sure Christian theologists might have their own reasons for rejecting this, but belief in a God, from a Buddhist perspective, doesn't preclude understanding these basic truths.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
Clearly you're no expert. Neither am I. I've only been studying and meditating for 12 years.

There is as much if not a greater diversity of schools and denominations of Buddhism as there are of Christianity. There are schools who incorporate beliefs in deities into their Buddhism. There are others who don't necessarily believe in reincarnation. In order for anyone to take your statements on the philosophy seriously you'd need to be specific about what approaches you believe are 'trendy, liberal hippie' interpretations.

You'll notice in this thread that I haven't made any attempt to argue Catholic theology with you. I'm not a Catholic and haven't studied Catholic theology, so I don't pontificate.

It is not that difficult for anyone to understand the basic precepts of Buddhism. That tends to be quite a standard response from western non-Buddhist religious types. Of course the deepest questions of practice and understanding of existence are complicated and require study, meditation and education. All committed Buddhists, and of course all Masters past and present, recognise this. I have never encountered anyone who practices Buddhism arguing that it's "all good, man". Never. Perhaps you could quote some of these laissez-faire 'Buddhists'.
Who has claimed it is 'anti-religious'? It's just that the word 'religious' doesn't really have any meaning in Buddhist terms. There are certainly many traditions in various schools of Buddhism who explore mystical ideas, however you want to define that word. There are no sins in the Buddhist tradition, merely actions, ideas and attitudes that help or hinder the search for truth and meaning.

An excellent recommendation, but there are so, so many teachers and writers to choose from. I would particularly recommend Stephen Batchelor's Buddhism Without Belief, The Art of Just Sitting by John Daido Loori and Everyday Zen by Charlotte Joko Beck. I also recommend this site.... Buddhanet's Buddhist Studies.

I think that because there is no concept of Buddhist orthodoxy, there is no conflict amongst Buddhist teachers, scholars, writers and practitioners about the 'right' and 'wrong' forms of Buddhist practice. There are as many forms as there are practitioners. In denigrating what you call 'trendy, liberal hippy' Buddhist practitioners, you show that you can't really come to terms with a philosophy without dogma, without theology, without orthodoxy. I suspect that is because you follow a religion for which these things are central.

So be it.
Click to expand...
You appear to be talking sensibly and knowledgeably now. I was simply criticising the very liberal, trendy New age and Western approach to Buddhism you often find today. Much of what you are saying is not necessarily part of that view, except the idea there is as many forms as practitioners. I do not think this is the best way to put it, certainly everyone's spiritual journey, even in Christianity, is individual, but everyone also requires the support of a living religious form and tradition. If you completely try and turn such a religion into pick'n'mix then you will not get far. Apart from that I agree with most of what you have said.

By the way, I'm not a Roman Catholic, but a high Church Anglican. I'm also something of a Platonic Christian. I find Buddhism harder to grasp in a way I don't Islam or Vedanta, though I'm of course no expert on these. Doctrines like 'no self' and the way Buddhist metaphysics expresses itself . Taoism is somewhat similar, it expresses itself in a way far harder to grasp than say Vedanta. And Western Taoists tend to be even worse than Western Buddhists, in my experience.
 
Andalublue said:
Good for you! I'm sure you already know this, but of course it is not incompatible for a Buddhist to believe in God, creation, sin etc. but it's just that these concepts don't feature in Buddhist philosophy. I can't think of any reason why a Christian couldn't accept the Four Noble Truths.
  1. Life is dhukka - roughly, suffering. We are born, age, get ill and die.
  2. The cause of suffering is craving; craving for wealth, gratification, life.
  3. That there can be a cessation to suffering, to craving, and to reliance on it.
  4. The way to release oneself from it is by the Eightfold Path.
I'm sure Christian theologists might have their own reasons for rejecting this, but belief in a God, from a Buddhist perspective, doesn't preclude understanding these basic truths.
Click to expand...

Well, first off they aren't "truths", basic or otherwise. I always lose any inclination towards Buddhism with the the first premise "Life is suffering". It needn't be from a humanistic perspective, nor is it how an Abrahamic God would describe it.
 
Wessexman said:
except the idea there is as many forms as practitioners.
Click to expand...

I'll respond to the whole post tomorrow. It's very late here now and the brain is not working at full capacity. I'd just comment on the above. The Lord Buddha said that every flower has a thousand blossoms and every blossom a thousand petals, but they all share the one same ground. That may be slightly paraphrasing, but the sense is accurate.

I don't think I ever made the assumption that you were a Roman Catholic, but your frequent references to the importance of tradition suggested your are either Catholic or Orthodox.
 
Andalublue said:
I'll respond to the whole post tomorrow. It's very late here now and the brain is not working at full capacity. I'd just comment on the above. The Lord Buddha said that every flower has a thousand blossoms and every blossom a thousand petals, but they all share the one same ground. That may be slightly paraphrasing, but the sense is accurate.
Click to expand...
The Christian can say this. One's relationship with God is personal and one's journey is individual. Some of the more mystical elements of Christianity, interested in the Imaginal realm between the psychic and the Intellectual, sometimes even talk of an individual angel once you raise your awareness to this realm, who guides you towards God. But it is important not to interpret this individuality in the sense of modern individualism. That would be to do damage the authentic spirituality of the Christian tradition, and no doubt the Buddhist one as well. Buddhist traditions don't tend to emphasis individualism in the modern sense, as far as I know, indeed far from it.

I don't think I ever made the assumption that you were a Roman Catholic, but your frequent references to the importance of tradition suggested your are either Catholic or Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I am basically borderline Orthodox.
 
I understand, from the Christian perspective, that it is wrong. However, I also understand we're not a theocracy...
 
Objective-J said:
thats a nice opinion but thats all it is

theres people out there that find a black person and white person kissing repulsive?
fat and ugly people kissing repulsive?
Dogs and Cats living in your house could be repulsive!

hell theres people out there that find a woman boss repulsive!

should we not allow any of those things either

whats you point? Logical you have none.
Click to expand...

Have you ever had sex? With another person I mean?

Wearing condoms is a choice. So is a vasectomy. Neither has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

Not pleasure. The pleasure is there to make us want to reproduce. There is no sex drive - it is reproductive drive.
 
ric27 said:
Have you ever had sex? With another person I mean?

Wearing condoms is a choice. So is a vasectomy. Neither has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

Not pleasure. The pleasure is there to make us want to reproduce. There is no sex drive - it is reproductive drive.
Click to expand...

some how I knew you would dodge the question because again theres no logic behind your stance.
thanks LMAO
 
Objective-J said:
some how I knew you would dodge the question because again theres no logic behind your stance.
thanks LMAO
Click to expand...

Homosexual men are sexually attracted to other men. Normal men are attracted to women. If we allow one group to shower with the group to which they are sexually attracted, how can we prohibit the other group from doing the same thing? What's fair about that?​
 
ric27 said:
Homosexual men are sexually attracted to other men. Normal men are attracted to women. If we allow one group to shower with the group to which they are sexually attracted, how can we prohibit the other group from doing the same thing? What's fair about that?​
Click to expand...


LMAO you still havent answered my question, why do you keep dodging it? LMAO
 
I think it could be possible he is basing those statements on his theological interpretation of The Bible. It's a possibility to think about.
 
Ben K. said:
Well, first off they aren't "truths", basic or otherwise. I always lose any inclination towards Buddhism with the the first premise "Life is suffering". It needn't be from a humanistic perspective, nor is it how an Abrahamic God would describe it.
Click to expand...
I underrstand the problem you are talking about, I always thought that was an issue with Buddhism too, but part of it is a problem with translating Pali (the language of the scriptures) into English. The word is dukkha. Here's a better definition than simply 'suffering':
No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a given context. There is value in not letting oneself get too comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that.
Click to expand...
Dukkha.

Saying that life needn't be suffering from a humanistic perspective isn't the issue, as we're not discussing it in humanistic terms.

Ah, I just found a great explanation...

ONE of the consequences of sentient biological existence is the experience dukkha. Dukkha is sometimes translated as suffering but in actual fact encompasses all senses of unsatisfactoriness, even including pleasure (which evolution has contrived will always be a transient sensation - lest it detract too much from the grim business of survival).

In its most manifest form dukkha includes severe suffering such as that of the animal caught in a trap which will gnaw through its own limb in order to attempt to gain some form of temporary survival, perhaps to return to its young. At the other end of the scale is the subtle dissatisfaction of the billionaire who has everything , and then discovers that his business rival has a slightly larger yacht.

Dukkha ensures you can never have enough, you've always got to have more.

Any sentient being living in an evolved and evolving biosphere will inevitably experience dukkha. Dukkha is the appearance to the mind of the habits of millions of years evolution , of attempting to get the competitive edge, of never being satisfied with second place, of perpetual restlessness
Click to expand...
From Dukkha, Dawkins, Darwinism
 
Last edited:
Ben K. said:
Well, first off they aren't "truths", basic or otherwise. I always lose any inclination towards Buddhism with the the first premise "Life is suffering". It needn't be from a humanistic perspective, nor is it how an Abrahamic God would describe it.
Click to expand...
Actually this is not quite correct, from an Abrahamic perspective. Suffering and evil are inherent in any life not completely focused on and united to God. I believe this is not too far from the Buddhist perspective, it is certainly not too far from the Vedantin one. The problem with Buddhism is there are certain aspects of it that, without further knowledge, I have problems understanding if they are fundamentally at odds with the Christian perspective or just a different way, though without ever simply equating things across such a wide cultural and symbolic space, of expressing similar truths. The doctrine of Anatta is one such aspect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom