• 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

It certainly can be an argument against gay marriage. If wrenching apart marriage to include those of the same sex further upsets the imaginative and cultural meaning of this institution, then it certainly can be an argument against gay marriage.

It is YOUR contention that marriage is being "wrenched apart" and that the meaning of marriage is being "upset" (as opposed to, say, simply being transformed or made to progress). Those are subjective evaluations that are not based on any objective fact or evidence, but rather an individual's value system.

Even if you did have a point, this reasoning would fall under the "appeal to tradition" fallacy.
 
Buddhists, from my personal experience, generally take a dim view of sexual pleasure and lust to begin with, not just homosexuality. I may be generalizing a bit though.
I believe this, though the topic is complex and I've far from an expert, is true. It would highly anachronistic but you might even say Buddhism has an 'Augustinian'-esue approach to sexuality, ie that it is a necessary sin or tolerated but best avoided passion, if memory serves.

But Buddhism, somewhat like Taoism, is very different from Western ways of thinking, far more so than say Vedanta or Islam. It would take deep, authentic study and experience for a Westerner to grasp the Buddhist perspective in any acceptable way. I myself do not have this knowledge.
 
I believe this, though the topic is complex and I've far from an expert, is true. It would highly anachronistic but you might even say Buddhism has an 'Augustinian'-esue approach to sexuality, ie that it is a necessary sin or tolerated but best avoided passion, if memory serves.

But Buddhism, somewhat like Taoism, is very different from Western ways of thinking, far more so than say Vedanta or Islam. It would take deep, authentic study and experience for a Westerner to grasp the Buddhist perspective in any acceptable way. I myself do not have this knowledge.

It's complex. This is both an accurate and inaccurate description at the same time, and you're right, it would be hard for a Westerner to grasp the logic behind it. Ultimately, the goal is for the individual to be able to transcend worldly desire and pleasures so that one is no longer attached to such things, so naturally carnal desires are one of the first to go. Of course, this is a general interpretation of what I have experienced Buddhist attitudes to be; the beliefs of Buddhists are by no means unitary or unvaried.
 
It is YOUR contention that marriage is being "wrenched apart" and that the meaning of marriage is being "upset" (as opposed to, say, simply being transformed or made to progress). Those are subjective evaluations that are not based on any objective fact or evidence, but rather an individual's value system.
One may be able to base them on rational argument however. You would simply have to examine what institutions like marriage mean in society, what supports them and what they support and then see how far such changes create imbalance and how far they can be healthily stretched. Presumably this is a part of the Pope's position, which he intertwines with the Thomistic and Scripture based positions of the Church. It is not out of ignorance he speaks, and in fact those who just decry his comments without understanding them are probably more ignorant. But he may be wrong, that would depend on a detailed investigation of his position.

Even if you did have a point, this reasoning would fall under the "appeal to tradition" fallacy.
No, not necessarily. That fallacy is a formal logical fallacy, I believe. That means that if, say, I said evolution is false because tradition says so, then it would be a fallacy. But if tradition is shown to be important to society and I show this is traditional, then there is not necessarily a fallacy.
 
One may be able to base them on rational argument however. You would simply have to examine what institutions like marriage mean in society, what supports them and what they support and then see how far such changes create imbalance and how far they can be healthily stretched. Presumably this is a part of the Pope's position, which he intertwines with the Thomistic and Scripture based positions of the Church. It is not out of ignorance he speaks, and in fact those who just decry his comments without understanding them are probably more ignorant. But he may be wrong, that would depend on a detailed investigation of his position.

We're just going to have to disagree here, because I personally believe the Pope's statements to be completely ignorant. As another poster brilliantly said:

Yeah forget climate change, nuclear war, disease, famine, desertification...

No it's really the gays that are the problem.

****ing hell humanity is stupid.

No, not necessarily. That fallacy is a formal logical fallacy, I believe. That means that if, say, I said evolution is false because tradition says so, then it would be a fallacy. But if tradition is shown to be important to society and I show this is traditional, then there is not necessarily a fallacy.

Yes, this is key. Thus far nobody has shown (to me at least) a satisfactory argument to this effect.
 
Last edited:
We're just going to have to disagree here, because I personally believe the Pope's statements to be completely ignorant. As another poster brilliantly said:
But that post misses the point. Firstly the Pope is interested in what he considers the ultimate destiny of mankind, but also he speaks out against those things as well.


Yes, this is key. Thus far nobody has shown (to me at least) a satisfactory argument to this effect.
It depends what you mean by tradition, but I think it is obvious that the way we view many things has an important social component, a component which is historically rooted.
 
The passage seems basically accurate. You'll note that in the first paragraph it makes it clear that:
the determination of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable for a layperson is not a religious matter

And the second paragraph:
homosexual conduct and gender variance are seen as obstacles to spiritual progress in most schools of Buddhism
is inaccurate. All sexual activity is seen as an obstacle, and all sexual activity is prohibited for monks and nuns, not for moralistic reasons but because it detracts from the pursuit of the truth of existence. I think that the article I posted earlier explains why this is the case.
 
Are these actual Buddhist or Westerners calling themselves Buddhists? Much of the Western, hippie type people who embrace Buddhism are quite out of step with what the religion traditionally has been. If I won't authentic knowledge and practice of Buddhism, and Taoism, I'd avoid most Western practitioners and even overly Westernised Easterners like the plague.
Yours is a baiting post.

Buddhism is a worldwide philosophy, many people who practice it wouldn't even call it a religion as 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. This is probably just one of the reasons why so many people across the world are investigating the nature of existence through meditation on the Four Noble Truths.
 
Yours is a baiting post.

Buddhism is a worldwide philosophy, many people who practice it wouldn't even call it a religion as 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. This is probably just one of the reasons why so many people across the world are investigating the nature of existence through meditation on the Four Noble Truths.
Actually your reply simply proves me right. Much of this is Western, modern nonsense parading as Buddhism. It is simply not true that you can make it up as you go along or you can do what you want or any of this trendy, liberal hippie interpretations that Westerners give to it. I'm far from an expert, but I certainly know that this sort of stuff is a great misunderstanding, and indeed a great disrespect of the Buddhist faith. Buddhism is very hard for the Western mind to understand, but it looks deceptively simple sometimes, it looks like it is 'all good man'. But it certainly is not that simple. Spiritual development is a hard path. It always is and as far as I can see the Buddhist masters knew this. Yes, some of the more externalised and rigid elements of modern, Western Christianity are missing from it, but that does not mean it is simply anti-religious in any new age sense. At its most mystical it is still no less 'religious' than Hesychasm or Sufi Islam.

I recommend Marco Pallis' work for a Westerner who aims at faithfulness to the authentic Buddhist, particularly Mahayana, tradition.
All sexual activity is seen as an obstacle, and all sexual activity is prohibited for monks and nuns, not for moralistic reasons but because it detracts from the pursuit of the truth of existence.
In Christianity sin distracts from the pursuit of truth. It is a movement away from God, who is the Good, the Beautiful and the True.
 
Last edited:
Actually your reply simply proves me right. Much of this is Western, modern nonsense parading as Buddhism. It is simply not true that you can make it up as you go along or you can do what you want or any of this trendy, liberal hippie interpretations that Westerners give to it. I'm far from an expert, but I certainly know that this sort of stuff is a great misunderstanding, and indeed a great disrespect of the Buddhist faith.
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.

Buddhism is very hard for the Western mind to understand, but it looks deceptively simple sometimes, it looks like it is 'all good man'. But it certainly is not that simple. Spiritual development is a hard path. It always is and as far as I can see the Buddhist masters knew this.
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'.
Yes, some of the more externalised and rigid elements of modern, Western Christianity are missing from it, but that does not mean it is simply anti-religious in any new age sense. At its most mystical it is still no less 'religious' than Hesychasm or Sufi Islam.
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.

I recommend Marco Pallis' work for a Westerner who aims at faithfulness to the authentic Buddhist, particularly Mahayana, tradition.
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.
 
Last edited:
I think you would have to explain to your 5 year old why you are in a place like Walmart to begin with. Next the more of a display you make of two people kissing the more the child the more of an impression it will make on that young mind.

Hetero take their sexuality for granted, because they're able to. Sexuality is going to encompass far more than the sexual act itself. As part of their sexuality, hetero's are able to have the support of family, dating without worrying about being outed, open conservation about the things all heteros talk about, etc....
 
As part of their sexuality, hetero's are able to have the support of family, dating without worrying about being outed, open conservation about the things all heteros talk about, etc....
I've always had, enjoyed and appreciated that, and I'm no hetero. BTW, what things do heteros talk about that LGBT people don't? Or is it a secret?
 
The difference being the majority do the former while a small minority do the latter. Which has absolutely nothing to do with why gays should not be able to marry.

The bottom line is, you have no constitutional right to not be inconvenienced because you're scared of explaining to your kid how homosexuality works, nor do you have the right to only see in public things you deem pleasant.

The champions and supporters couldn't even get homosexual "marriage" approved in CALIFORNIA when it was put to a vote, there's no ****ing way The People want this, dude
 
BTW, what things do heteros talk about that LGBT people don't?

How much they hate it when their wives ask them to pick up some tampons since they happen to be going to the store anyway?
 
According to Catholic-Scholastic it is only if you aim to defeat the purpose of sexual procreation that you are being immoral. As long as the overall purpose is pursued then none of the above are considered immoral. It would be immoral if you married someone because they were sterile, but as long as the final cause of sexual intercourse, which is considered reproduction in the broadest sense of producing and bringing up healthy children, is not defeated through one's conscious or negligent actions then no sin is committed.

But isn't marrying someone who is sterile itself defeating the act of reproduction?

Sorry, but the church and anyone else who buys this logic is being inconsistent.
 
What right do homosexuals have to force us to raise our children in view of their open displays of affection? Why should I have to explain to a 5 year-old why two men are kissing in say...Walmart?

You didn't answer my questions about whether you oppose marriage for the infertile or post-menopausal women. Waiting.

As for public displays of affection - it's one of hundreds of things you have to deal with when raising a kid. It's life.
 
Man and a woman kissing vs two men kissing


They are not the same, so the same answer will not work.

What possible answer wouldn't work for both?
 
Putting aside the Pope saying does anybody have any logical reason how gay marriage is a threat to humanity?
 
Back
Top Bottom