The pope should bless a gay marriage.

"As I've pointed out earlier, the Pope's decision to bless a gay marriage has tangible and real benefits that are desirable." I explain again, that if the Pope was objective to his moral principle, as taught in the Bible, the "benefits" are simply not benefits according to what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexuality is immoral, therefore the Pope must abide by it. For that is what "benefits" the world, according to his belief. Note: I emphasized benefits, as what is beneficial to a Christian is different from what is beneficial to a secular humanist. C1: The world would be a better place if the pope blessed a gay marriage. "In Whatledge's last round, he claimed that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I fully concede this point, although I am aware that some religious leaders would disagree with me." So, we agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality. "By itself, this fact is nothing special. There is simply no rational reason to think that the Bible's morality is just as valid as any other system of ethics." I agree, but this is hardly the issue. To a Catholic, and especially to the Pope, the Bible's morality is absolute. It is not a matter of which system of ethics is more valid, it is the matter of what the Pope and the Christians/Catholics believe. A beneficial world for a Christian is a world without immorality. My opponent conceded that the Bible condemns homosexuality; it is evident that in the Christian worldview, homosexuality is generally frowned upon as immoral. The Pope would be betraying the Bible's moral principles, was he to support a gay marriage. Just as Mr. Freeman has said, "There is simply no rational reason to think that the Bible's morality is just as valid as any other system of ethics." This works vice versa. Therefore, we cannot negate the Christian code of ethics, especially when it is the Pope, who is in question. "If anyone really tried to follow the Bible word for word, they almost certainly would become a psychopath. Sam Harris, one of the "four horsemen" of the "new atheism," sums up this point with traditional candor and clarity." If they look at it metaphorically, the "psychopath" issue is easily avoided. For example, proverb says, put to death a child, who smites his father. If we take this metaphorically, it still implies smiting one's father is immoral. The moral message it spreads is evident, even if not taken literally. Meaning, homosexuality is still immoral in the Christian view, but not to the literal extent, where homosexuals should be stoned. "It should therefore be obvious that we are all perfectly free to disregard numerous parts of the Bible, even if we happen to be Christian." False, while Christians can interpret the Bible metaphorically, they cannot simply disregard some parts. Not taken as literal =/= disregard. The moral message is rather straightforward. Also "death" is sometimes construed as not receiving eternal life, and being condemned to hell. "Personally, I am not a Christian; this is not my problem to solve. I don't care how Christians attempt to reconcile their beliefs with modernity, but they must do this in order to be civilized. Thus, it would be a good idea if Christians disregarded the hateful passages of scripture and placed a heavy emphasis on the good parts." That would, from my perspective, make Christianity even more erroneous and insubstantial. We cannot simply negate the morality it teaches, simply because it is incompatible with our moral beliefs. If you do not follow the Bible as it is, you are no Christian at all. One can subjectively interpret the Bible, but one cannot subjectively disregard bits of the Bible. ::Conclusion:: "People that believe arbitrary forms of discrimination are justifiable are simply ignorant about many aspects of psychological health and human wellbeing." So Christians should arbitrarily disregard bits of the bible that conflict with your morals. But people should not have arbitrary forms of discriminations? "As I have stated earlier, the world would be a better place if the Pope decided to bless a gay marriage." If the Pope blessed a gay marriage, the world would be a better place for open-minded theists, atheists, and homosexuals. For fundamentalists and your typical theist? I think they would disagree. To deduce my position: I agree that the world will be a better place if the Pope blessed a gay marriage. However, "better place" is a matter of opinion, and stresses on your beliefs. Mr. Freeman and I both agree that the Bible teaches homosexuality as immoral. The typical Christian and the Pope will agree that homosexuality is immoral. Immoral acts should be condemned to make a world a better place. Christians and the Pope should be objective to what the Bible teaches, as that is their duty (beliefs). Therefore, the Pope should not support/bless a gay marriage, as that is in direct conflict for what he stands for. I thank Mr. Freeman, for this debate.