Marriage Debate

[Upchurch]

Name one.

You mean, besides Huntster? How about 1inChrist or muscleman? That's three from this board right there.

No terms on that bet or have you given up trying to paint me as a anti-Catholic bigot?

 

[Meadmaker]

The hostility towards homosexuals, though, is clear in thinking homosexual acts are immoral and/or unnatural.

It helps to understand the Catholic doctrine toward sin. You have to grasp that the standard they set is, quite literally, impossible to meet. Yes, he's calling you a sinner. And him a sinner. And the Pope a sinner. And everyone's a sinner.

That's why I say you can't necessarily say that he is bigoted just because he calls homosexual acts sinful. If he hated everyone he thought was guilty of sin, he would literally hate everyone. I'll probably have a bit more to say on this later, but that's the start.

 

[Upchurch]

That's why I say you can't necessarily say that he is bigoted just because he calls homosexual acts sinful. If he hated everyone he thought was guilty of sin, he would literally hate everyone. I'll probably have a bit more to say on this later, but that's the start.

And what about the descrimination? How does that play in?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Why aren’t those fair questions, Huntster?

A fertile man who has sex with (or marries) a postmenopausal woman knows he’s not going to make a baby. A fertile woman who has sex with (or marries) a man who’s had his testicles removed, or a man who does the same with a woman missing the female anatomy knows the same. All their sex is closed to procreation.

Would you say the fertile member of the couple is morally obligated to go find a fertile partner, or that it is wrong to partner up with someone you know you can’t produce children with?

Now if you’re allowing the supernatural, then I can tell you for sure many gays are having sex open to the possibility that a baby would result.

Also, I’d still like to know your (and the RCC’s) opinion of hermaphrodites. Humans are out there literally genetically and/or anatomically both (or neither) female and male. Do you think these people can marry? If so, who? Either sex? I’d also really like to know if the RCC has put out anything on this.

I am genuinely curious, and regret if the answers are too obvious to spell out, but I’m not seeing them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It helps to understand the Catholic doctrine toward sin. You have to grasp that the standard they set is, quite literally, impossible to meet. Yes, he's calling you a sinner. And him a sinner. And the Pope a sinner. And everyone's a sinner.

That's why I say you can't necessarily say that he is bigoted just because he calls homosexual acts sinful. If he hated everyone he thought was guilty of sin, he would literally hate everyone. I'll probably have a bit more to say on this later, but that's the start.

This does seem to be somewhat different that how it is often used. They claim X is better than Y because Y is a sin. There are many behaviors that they are trying to end because they concider it a sin. So while that might the case it does not seem to be the way that they act.

If everyone is so irredemably a sinner, so that there is no descrimination in naming an activity a sin, how can they hope to apply any pressure agenst the things they dislike like say capital punishment?

There is an intent to modify behavior, so that would be different from everyone being a horrible sinner. That shows that they think homosexuals are worse than the average sinner, or they would not focus so much on changing the behavior.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yup, on all points.



Yup, again, on all points.



Yup.

Don't count on any change on the pro-SSM political and ideological front, though.

I think you can see why in this thread.

Yup.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

It helps to understand the Catholic doctrine toward sin. You have to grasp that the standard they set is, quite literally, impossible to meet. Yes, he's calling you a sinner. And him a sinner. And the Pope a sinner. And everyone's a sinner.

I get that. It’s the nature of what he’s calling a sin that I’m taking issue with. As I explained in too much detail in the last post; it’s not like he’s calling people immoral for murder.

I’d still like to know. What would you think of gay fathers who treated their heterosexual son as if he were sinning by entering into a marriage with a woman? Even if it were for some weird pagan religious reasons, I couldn’t resist calling them hateful, cruel and bigoted.

That's why I say you can't necessarily say that he is bigoted just because he calls homosexual acts sinful. If he hated everyone he thought was guilty of sin, he would literally hate everyone. I'll probably have a bit more to say on this later, but that's the start.

I know “hate” and “bigot” aren’t useful words here, and I don’t honestly want to apply them to Huntster, even just in my private mind. I’m not. But I do think I’m offering a double standard here compared to the example above and I think I do it because it’s my tradition and my culture, and really because I once felt near the same as Huntster on this.

Again, the intensity is very subjective, as to whether or not it could be called “hate” for the average anti-gay rights member of any faith group. But I think the hostility is clear in what they are asking of their gay neighbors, and the lack of concern, and lack of consideration about how it would harm them if they were in the gay kid’s shoes.

I saw it drive the 1st kid I dated to madness, then suicide; and it’s not love; that’s for sure, even though they may like to call it that.

 

[Upchurch]

Yup.

'cause injustice is okay as long as it doesn't rattle people with delicate sensibilities too much?

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's why I say you can't necessarily say that he is bigoted just because he calls homosexual acts sinful.

Yes, we can. Because he wants to legislate homosexual behavior as illegal based on it being "sinful" yet I doubt he wants to legislate all other sins to be illegal.

If he hated everyone he thought was guilty of sin, he would literally hate everyone.

With Huntster, this is a definite possibility. However, I think he views some sins more "bad" than other sins. If everone is a sinner, why does he want to pick on the homosexuals in particular?

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you support slavery, Mead?

I'm not a Christian myself, but I respect those who are.

(I grew up Catholic, gave it up, called myself a Unitarian and a Buddhist for a while. I still think of myself as a Buddhist, but less and less as I don't practice. Meanwhile, since marriage, I've participated in Jewish ritual with my family, and am a member at the temple.)

 

[Meadmaker]

So according to your views, it's wrong for post menopausal women to ever have sex?

You never heard of Sarah?

Seriously, though, I haven't read to the end of the thread, so Huntster may have already addressed it. The Catholic teaching is, more or less, to leave that up to God. People try to put up all sorts of gotchas and loopholes and "it can't be so, because I'm so darned clever that I've thought of something that a few thousand years of theologians haven't considered", but really, if you read stuff put out by the various churches that have stood the test of time, they've thought of this stuff, and have an answer. I won't say that the answer always makes sense to me, personally, but it's not ridiculous, or the whole thing would have been chucked a few thousand years ago.

 

[Meadmaker]

The Nazi party?
.... What makes the catholic church different?

Hello, pondering. You'll fit right in here.

The Catholic Church preaches a certain moral code for living. As I mentioned, no one actually meets the demands of that moral code, but they have it nonetheless. Part of that code is that there is a right way and a wrong way to have sex. (Actually, if I recall, there are a whole lot of wrong ways to have sex, and very few right ones.)

If you want to say when they brand one sort of sex as immoral, that it makes them bigoted toward people who like that sort of sex, I won't argue. At that point, we're arguing about the semantics of the word "bigot". In my opinion, a key feature of bigotry is that you not only look down on the object of the bigotry, but you take actions that insult, ridicule, or persecute them.

Does the RCC do that to homosexuals? Well, they know what they do, so they can decide. Likewise, Upchurch et. al. can decide if their characterizations of Catholics are fair and reasonable, or biased, inaccurate, and insulting. And, to my way of thinking, comparisons of the Catholic Church to the KKK and Nazis are, well, a bit over the top. But that's just me.

 

[Meadmaker]

This made even more complicated by the churchs rejection of any medical assistence in procreation.

This isn't accurate.

 

[Meadmaker]

You mean, besides Huntster? How about 1inChrist or muscleman? That's three from this board right there.

I haven't read anything by muscleman, and 1inChrist has been on my ignore list for ages.

As for Huntster, I don't see any reason to assume that he lacks reason or logic, or that he gets his opinions from authority figures.

It seems to me, and this is just an impression which you can correct if I'm wrong, that you have no particular dislike of Catholics as long as they don't act all that Catholic, by actually, say, believing and accepting Church doctrine. It also seems to me that you are saying that one cannot hold to that traditional doctrine as a consequence of logic and reason, but that anyone who holds that doctrine does so at the urging of an authority figure.

I've read Catholic philosophy, from Aquinas to Benedict XVI, and they strike me as some pretty sharp guys, perfectly capable of using logic and reasoning. Therefore, your apparent assertions to the contrary strike me as inaccurate and, well, bigoted.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, we can. Because he wants to legislate homosexual behavior as illegal based on it being "sinful" yet I doubt he wants to legislate all other sins to be illegal.

If that were true, you'd have a point, but he doesn't. Ask him. I did. You can read his answer a page or two ago.

With Huntster, this is a definite possibility. However, I think he views some sins more "bad" than other sins. If everone is a sinner, why does he want to pick on the homosexuals in particular?

Because threads about fallen away Catholics don't go on for forty pages.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gotchas and loopholes? It's up to God? So God can perform a miracle and impregnate an elderly woman then why not a lesbian? His/her miracles are limited?

Just who is it making these loopholes? Seems to me it's whoever is interpreting their religious rules, and those are certainly subject to interpretation.

Man misinterprets the Bible yet man is absolutely convinced homosexuality is a sin. Not too long ago interracial marriage was a sin. Oh, wait, that wasn't God, that was human error in interpreting God. Convenient.

 

[Meadmaker]

What would you think of gay fathers who treated their heterosexual son as if he were sinning by entering into a marriage with a woman?

If they had beliefs on sin similar to Catholics and treated him "as if he were sinning", then that would just consist of saying that they thought he was sinning, refusing to bless the marriage, but otherwise treating him normally. After all, that was just his particular sin.

If they treated him like dirt, and refuse to be near him, then that would be bad.

 

[Upchurch]

I haven't read anything by muscleman, and 1inChrist has been on my ignore list for ages.

And does your not knowing or paying attention two these posters invalidate my point?

As for Huntster, I don't see any reason to assume that he lacks reason or logic, or that he gets his opinions from authority figures.

I thought you said he doesn't like homosexuality because he is a faithful Catholic? Is the Church not an authority figure? Is scripture not an authority figure?

Do you see Huntster presenting any logical arguments against homosexuality or a rational reason for not allowing SSM?

It seems to me, and this is just an impression which you can correct if I'm wrong, that you have no particular dislike of Catholics as long as they don't act all that Catholic, by actually, say, believing and accepting Church doctrine. It also seems to me that you are saying that one cannot hold to that traditional doctrine as a consequence of logic and reason, but that anyone who holds that doctrine does so at the urging of an authority figure.

How very black and white of you. Of course one can hold traditional doctrine as a consequence of logic and reason. I see no evidence that Huntster has done this and plenty that he hasn't.

I've read Catholic philosophy, from Aquinas to Benedict XVI, and they strike me as some pretty sharp guys, perfectly capable of using logic and reasoning. Therefore, your apparent assertions to the contrary strike me as inaccurate and, well, bigoted.

I've read Aquinas. Huntster is no Aquinas.

 

[Upchurch]

Just out of curiosity and an attempt to get the thread back on topic, Meadmaker:

Am I correct in my assessment that you are in favor of same sex marriage, but it is your opinion that instead of advocating same sex marriage, we should instead not work towards same sex marriage but rather a "seperate but equal" system? You want to take this tact not because such a system is just, but because it is somehow less unjust than what currently exists and might not upset those who are against same sex marriage as much.

Is that correct?

 

[Meadmaker]

I've read Aquinas. Huntster is no Aquinas.

It's true that Huntster has his own unique style, and no one would confuse him with Aquinas. However, even given that, I think your assessment of his logical skills are colored by the fact that you disagree with the premises on which his arguments are based. I think he has presented valid, logical, arguments. They are usually in terse and undefended terms. Moreover, I usually disagree with the soundness of those arguments, regardless of their validity. That doesn't mean that they lack logic.