• 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


Tradition is very important in all Buddhist thought. Each school, especially important in Zen, traces its teachings back through a line of masters to its foundations. If you follow a particular tradition, you will be aware of that lineage, but you are never expected to accept anything on faith alone. You must use your own reason, your own mind and you must meditate.

There is an extent to which one can 'pick'n'mix'. In doing so you may stray away from the traditional teachings of the school whose teachings you learned your practice from, but if that works for you, what's the problem? Without dogma, no one is going to say, "you aren't following our teachings, you are not a Buddhist, you must leave our school". There is no membership of schools, indeed most people who practice Buddhist teachings would never call themselves a Buddhist because doing so feeds into dualism, the sense of 'this' and 'other'. We are all the same, we are all part of one existence, so saying, "I am this" and "You are that" perpetuates the false perception of a world divided into individuals. The idea of the oneness of self and environment is fairly central in many schools of Buddhist teaching.

There's no merit placed upon affiliation to a particular school or tradition. I first learned about meditation and Buddhist practice from a monk connected to a monastery of Tibetan tradition. I found greater depth in study and practice with an order of monks from a Japanese Zen tradition, and I now practice a more Zen-like style of meditation and go on retreats at a Zen centre from a different lineage. I have been on retreat at monasteries of Thai and Khmer Theravada tradition and another of Chinese Chi-an tradition. No one was interested in knowing what my background in practice had been. They simply accepted and taught me the knowledge accumulated by their tradition. I was welcome to participate in their services and ceremonies without having to accept their philosophical viewpoints.

You could ask, therefore, am I a Buddhist. I would answer that I am nothing.
 

Theologists don't reject those 'truths' they just get them in a different manner (via the Spirit) and describe them a bit differently:

1. Life is suffering, but the yoke of Jesus is a joy.
2. Crave only the Kingdom.
3. To cease suffering, die on the cross with Christ and rise with Him to walk in righteous footsteps every day.
4. The Way is Christ and by faith in Him the Spirit will guide you.


Not really so different, just Christians have a focal point/example of a messiah who is God Himself, also founded in books of wisdom. Siddhartha's not a God, but really what's the diff to someone who doesn't believe in supernatural metaphysics. Theist vs. Philosophy is the only real distinction.
 
Last edited:
Dear All,

This thread doesn't seem the correct place to discuss these wider issues of the compatibility or otherwise of Christian and Buddhist thought. I think I'm more guilty than anyone else of derailing discussion of the Pope's thoughts on homosexuality.

If anyone's interested I have started another thread to share thoughts and observations on the Christian/Buddhist religions/philosophies. It's here....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...y-and-buddhism-compatible.html#post1060111936

Please join me, but let's try not to revisit the homosexuality and SSM issue unless we absolutely have to.
 
Last edited:
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...

Yes, I think you, me and Samhain agree on that.
 

You still haven't answered my question about marriage among heteros who can't have children, or sex that can't result in children (such as oral sex). Why are you running away?
 

So is sex that can't result in reproduction wrong? Answer the question.
 
 
jasonxe said:
Click to expand...

I figured a more socially-liberal partisan would post this video at some point. To be honest, I am surprised. I would have thought said liberal would post it hours earlier..
 
Wake said:
I figured a more socially-liberal partisan would post this video at some point. To be honest, I am surprised. I would have thought said liberal would post it hours earlier..
Click to expand...

just bored. I got it from watching

 
Pope Nosferatu is irrelevant. Most of the Catholics I know still go to church, but they largely seem to do so out of habit or a desire for community, because none of them I know believe half of what the Catholic Church tells them to believe.
 
Wake said:
I figured a more socially-liberal partisan would post this video at some point. To be honest, I am surprised. I would have thought said liberal would post it hours earlier..
Click to expand...

The sad thing is that there is such a video to present, that anyone would be saying these things. Sad. really sad.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Pope Nosferatu is irrelevant. Most of the Catholics I know still go to church, but they largely seem to do so out of habit or a desire for community, because none of them I know believe half of what the Catholic Church tells them to believe.
Click to expand...

Then they aren't really any more than "secular Catholics," are they?
 
nota bene said:
Then they aren't really any more than "secular Catholics," are they?
Click to expand...

Interesting. Perhaps it has taken some time to come up with the name, but there certainly seems to be quite a few "secular Christians/Catholics."

Who needs Christianity when you're a secular Christian? Churches don't matter. Traditional morals don't matter. Etc...
 

No, just cultural traditions.
 

"It's icky" is not sufficient grounds to deny people the right to do something. Don't you agree?

I mean, I think peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are icky too, but under no circumstances should society be allowed to ban them!
 

I know people who would look away if they saw a black man and a white woman kissing or a white man and a black woman kissing. I even know some who would look away if any white person was kissing a person of any other race. They find the thought of mixing the races, particularly white with any other race, to be just as repulsive as homosexuality.

It is a learned behavior, not an instinctive one. Just look at children. Most children will kiss men or women on the mouth when they are very young without blinking about it because they haven't been taught how to kiss "properly". All they know is kissing shows affection/love.
 
nota bene said:
Then they aren't really any more than "secular Catholics," are they?
Click to expand...

And why is that a bad thing?

Does having different views of religious beliefs or the Bible or God than an established church make a person less worthy of God or less in-touch with God? If you believe so, then what makes you right and them wrong? Is it just because the majority of the church agrees with you? Isn't it all just opinion?
 
Can somebody please tell me about the myths of homosexuality and gay marriage? Providing legitimate scientific sources would be nice, too.
 
Deuce said:
"It's icky" is not sufficient grounds to deny people the right to do something. Don't you agree?

I mean, I think peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are icky too, but under no circumstances should society be allowed to ban them!
Click to expand...



The **** that homosexuals complain about with respect to not being able to marry can be taken care of with a power of attorney. It's a little more paperwork, but it achieves the same thing. But the objective of the homosexual lobby isn't to achieve some sort of parity with heterosexual society, it's to morph heterosexual society into something that celebrates their lifestyle as something that's completely valid or even preferential to the traditional heterosexual "nuclear family".​
 

It's more paperwork and more expensive. Which makes it unequal. Plus, there are some things that cannot be taken care of just with a power of attorney (SS benefits, military dependent benefits, etc.), which also makes it unequal.
 
Sunbelt said:
Can somebody please tell me about the myths of homosexuality and gay marriage? Providing legitimate scientific sources would be nice, too.
Click to expand...

If you explain what you mean by "myths".

Do you think homosexuality or gay marriage (same sex marriage is more accurate considering the marriage we are talking about is a contract and limited by sex, not sexuality) is a myth/doesn't exist really? Do you think that there are myths about what will happen if same sex marriage is legal everywhere?
 

Why would you have to accept it as normal? Even if same sex marriage is legalized (and it should be legalized for as long as the Marriage License exists), that doesn't mean you have to like it or think it's ok.
 

They don't have to give up their viewpoint, they just can't codify it into actual law. There's no reason to force others to obey your god using the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…