Legalization of gay marriage

The foundation of the Catholic Church is the Papacy, not the inerrant Bible. They state as much, as seen here. [1] Even if Christ did mean that Peter was to be the lead apostle in beginning the church, Constantine and a succession of Popes have misused this passage to defend the outlawing of Bibles in the language of the common people, so people would see the Catholic priesthood and Papacy as intercessors between them and God, concealing the truth that the temple curtain was torn open upon the crucifixion of Christ, allowing all believers access to the Holy of Holies (ark of the covenant, the throne of God), not just the priesthood. This abolition of the Bible allowed them to twist and invent doctrine however they wished. I am not Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church is not the true church. They have openly persecuted believers who reject their heresy, quietly promoted sexual deviancy, and ignored a culture of prostitution in Europe, even absorbed false pagan deities into sainthood in order to win converts. My father-in-law's ancestors were Huguenots who were tortured and murdered by "the Church" in France until they were driven out. I know people who were abused by priests and nuns. Europe is a spiritually dark place with few true believers, and we send many missionaries there today. So whatever atrocities and lies the Roman Catholic Church continues to perpetuate and cover up, is no surprise to me. At their core, they deny and ignore scripture, attempting to corrupt the true church by destroying the founding principals. The Archbishop of Canterbury is currently in a similar boat. The Anglican Church accepts whatever doctrine they think will make them popular with the world, however counter to the truth it may be. This has led to many Anglican/Episcopal congregations splitting from the Church of England, and joining African and Latin American Bishops, who already split off for the same reasons. [2] "...[the founders] had a specific meaning on which the wrote those principles. That i do agree on. Where i differ is the fact that you are saying those beliefs should not change, ever. What was morally acceptable 100 years ago will change irregardless of what we want. Morality is subjective and very dependent on how we integrate it into society." I do not agree with every jot and tiddle of the founding. They were not perfect people, but they all had the same basic Christian based morality, and that is what they based their principals on. If you think there were many among them that whole-heartedly supported slavery, even among those who owned slaves, you are in for a history lesson. I dare you to bring up the 3/5 compromise. You acknowledge that I was right about your view: That morality is subjective, and only holds as long as the majority agrees with it. What if a very persuasive person stood up and got the ear of the nation, and told them it is morally right to enslave homosexuals and Jews and gypsies and confiscate their property, and most of the nation was swayed to his opinion? Since most people now agree with him, how can you say it is the wrong thing to do? Would you have any moral compunction if you found yourself living among the natives that Amerigo Vespucci encountered? They ate little red meat, except when they went to war, then they ate their enemies, and took no prisoners except to torture. The perception of morality may change, but right is always right, and wrong is always wrong. If society doesn't think so, they can be persuaded that anything is right. So is slavery of blacks morally right if a majority agrees with it? If no, you must abandon your point that morality is subjective. You agree that morals exist that transcend social fads. To win the debate with a "no" answer, you must then prove transcendent morality approves gay marriage. If yes, you capitulate that slavery of blacks would be OK since the majority believes it to be right. With the abandonment of principals that transcend social fads, no civil right is safe, and the very existence of rights would be in question. You only have them as long as you can convince most people you have them. They are a fabrication. If there are no civil rights, gay marriage certainly can't be a right, because rights don't exist. You lose the debate. 1. http://www.catholic.com... 2. http://www.nytimes.com...