Marriage Debate

[Meadmaker]

I’d love to see it. If they have one they thought out hundreds of years ago, I’m eger to read it. Where is it?

Google can only do so much. I'm confident that there's an answer. You could always ask a priest.

In the case of Hermaphrodites, the situation is pretty rare, and there is probably no definitive answer from a Pope. Like the Supreme Court, the Pope rarely deals with hypotheticals. The question might be stalled in the lower courts, i.e. the Bishops and Cardinals.

 

[Meadmaker]

And this is dodgeing the question. When does being a supporting member of an organization that makes bigoted claims(Weather the catholic church does is a seperate issue) not make you a bigot?

I would call a member of a bigoted organization a bigot in most cases. I don't think the Catholic Church is bigoted. Your definition of "bigot" may be different.

 

[Upchurch]

Google can only do so much. I'm confident that there's an answer.

How confident? "Marriage vows have been legally binding in the past" confident?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

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.

Bad? You wouldn’t at least call them horrible parents or pro-homosexual bigots? Seems Upchurch would do far far less then emotionally ruin his hypothetical catholic-marrying children, yet you’re giving the label to him (at least saying he seems to be holding bigoted beliefs).

These religions put homosexual relationships right up there with murder and theft, even the rape of a child (I hope I don’t need to spell out the differences again.). If your son were a child rapist and wanted to marry a ten year-old, you’d simply refuse to “bless the marriage”, but otherwise treating him normally? No, you wouldn’t, you’d try to restrict him as much as you could, and that would hurt him, and so what if he gets hurt? Right? I know I would.

Many gay kids from conservative Christian homes do get treated horribly. They are treated like they are sinning in awful ways, and, if they were, they should be treated in such a way. As it would be for pedophilia, their parents see it as their moral responsibility to oppose their children’s action, at the expense of their children’s happiness. I mean, it’s not like their kid lied and is sorry for it; he’s saying he’s going to be gay for life, have what they see as highly immoral sex, and he’s not ashamed of it. If you put that on the level of stuff like murder, then you are logically and morally bound to harm and restrict your child.

Sure, at least all the wile the parent tell their sinner kid’s they love them .

And come on, Dave. Even if it was as tame as you suggest, how important was it to you that your family blessed your union? That's not a small thing. It was, and still is important to me. When I was young, I would have even gone to shock therapy to try to change my orientation, if they ask me to.

 

[Upchurch]

I would call a member of a bigoted organization a bigot in most cases. I don't think the Catholic Church is bigoted. Your definition of "bigot" may be different.

Well, there are shades of grey, as in most things. You might check out the Catholic treatment of women within the religion, for example.

 

[Darat]

I would call a member of a bigoted organization a bigot in most cases. I don't think the Catholic Church is bigoted. Your definition of "bigot" may be different.

The defintion is of bigot is (OED) "Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, or party; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and intolerant towards others."

Which part of that does not apply to the Roman Catholic church?

 

[Meadmaker]

How many of those theologians where trained at all in logic?

All of them. It is part of the program.

Your local parish priest may not be the brightest bulb in the set, but when you start dealing with the Cardinals and theologians, they're sharp, and they're well educated.

On these boards, you'll get a greatly simplified and at least slightly inaccurate version, but these guys really do think it through. You aren't going to find some obvious hole in the logic that they've never thought of. You might, and will probably, disagree with their premises, but their logic is pretty strong.

Now with modern medicine....

The Catholic Church has indeed had a bunch of problems with modern medicine, and an awful lot of people haven't like their answers, including a lot of people that used to be Catholics. Still, their answers are their answers, and they are internally consistent.

 

[Meadmaker]

The defintion is of bigot is (OED) "Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, or party; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and intolerant towards others."

Which part of that does not apply to the Roman Catholic church?

The intolerance part. (That was not always true, of course. Torqemada was a bigot. He's dead now.)

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Google can only do so much. I'm confident that there's an answer. You could always ask a priest.

Will try it.

But Google can do a lot. It would be very surprising if an attempt at this one isn't on the internet, particularly with the way you've characterized it.

I'm still surprised it's not on the RCC web site; I've generally found it very informative.

In the case of Hermaphrodites, the situation is pretty rare, and there is probably no definitive answer from a Pope. Like the Supreme Court, the Pope rarely deals with hypotheticals. The question might be stalled in the lower courts, i.e. the Bishops and Cardinals.

That’s too bad as it get to the heart of some of the weighty decisions on sex that have already been made.

But, Hypothetical?!

IIRC, about 1 in every 2000 births are of children who are in some way intersexed. Sure, they often hide from the attention, as is understandable, and try to pass as the sex they feel most comfortable being, or the sex that will allow them to marry who they want (sometimes, to their chagrin, not the same). But they are not hypothetical humans.

If you want I can post references to journal review articles on such neither (or both) male/female people. I can send you case studies on people who have literally about 50/50 male/female cells in their body. Some people even have both male and female reproductive tissue that may work under the right hormonal conditions and, with a little help could conceivably conceive either as a mother or a father would.

 

[Darat]

How is the Roman Catholic Church not intolerant?

Intolerance (OED): 2. spec. Absence of tolerance for difference of opinion or practice, esp. in religious matters; denial of the right to differ; narrow-minded or bigoted opposition to dissent.

Does the Church allow a woman to become a priest? Can I (as a non-confirmed non-RC) take holy communion? The last Pope produced a wonderful document in which he described all other Christian Churches as being deficient.

The RC church is a totally intolerant organisation.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

On these boards, you'll get a greatly simplified and at least slightly inaccurate version, but these guys really do think it through. You aren't going to find some obvious hole in the logic that they've never thought of. You might, and will probably, disagree with their premises, but their logic is pretty strong.

This is the frustration du jour .

How can one tell if it’s strong if we can’t find it? How do you, Dave, know it is? If there is no official opinion on hermaphroditic humans, then why isn’t that some obvious hole in the logic? Granted, they may “thought of” it, probably have, but where’s the solution they came up with? You seem to say they haven’t yet (hermaphrodites aren’t a new phenomena either; they’ve had a lot of time), but that’s not a hole?

I don’t know if it’s out there, and if it is let’s see it. But how can you qualify an argument’s logic as “pretty strong” without seeing it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

All of them. It is part of the program.

Your local parish priest may not be the brightest bulb in the set, but when you start dealing with the Cardinals and theologians, they're sharp, and they're well educated.

Show me the reference

On these boards, you'll get a greatly simplified and at least slightly inaccurate version, but these guys really do think it through. You aren't going to find some obvious hole in the logic that they've never thought of. You might, and will probably, disagree with their premises, but their logic is pretty strong.

The Catholic Church has indeed had a bunch of problems with modern medicine, and an awful lot of people haven't like their answers, including a lot of people that used to be Catholics. Still, their answers are their answers, and they are internally consistent.

Prove it. Show how their stances on say when sex is alright vs a sin flow from their first principles. I want to see the proof.

All I see is accertion, not any actual evidence that this is true.

I want to see from first principles that show that condoms are more sinful than haveing sex with a pregnant woman or an infertal woman.

 

[Meadmaker]

How confident? "Marriage vows have been legally binding in the past" confident?

Yes, and they were. For those who missed that part, I had asserted that the marriage vows including love, honor...etc....death do us part constituted a legally binding contract at one time. That's not quite correct. The legally binding contract part was "I, Jane, take thee John, to be my husband." and "I John take thee Jane to be my wife." The state then defined what that meant. Of course, the state defined it for a long time to mean to mean exactly what the rest of the vows said it meant. Therefore, in practical terms, there was no difference at all until the state changed the marriage laws.

Upchurch spent a lot of time criticizing this view, citing their expression as part of a religious ceremony. Actually, though, they were part of a civil ceremony, that happened to take place, sometimes, in a church. The same vows were spoken if you got married by the Justice of the Peace. They just didn't say "God" anywhere. Darat pointed out that their origin was civil, not religious.

It is my impression that Upchurch didn't like the view that they were legally binding, because he thought they were religious in nature as opposed to civil. His dogged insistence on that view is part of what led me to label him as an anti-religious bigot. He dusliked something, not because of what it did, but because of its association with religion.

You can state your own opinion if you feel a need to correct the record.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, and they were. For those who missed that part, I had asserted that the marriage vows including love, honor...etc....death do us part constituted a legally binding contract at one time. That's not quite correct. The legally binding contract part was "I, Jane, take thee John, to be my husband." and "I John take thee Jane to be my wife." The state then defined what that meant. Of course, the state defined it for a long time to mean to mean exactly what the rest of the vows said it meant. Therefore, in practical terms, there was no difference at all until the state changed the marriage laws.

Upchurch spent a lot of time criticizing this view, citing their expression as part of a religious ceremony. Actually, though, they were part of a civil ceremony, that happened to take place, sometimes, in a church. The same vows were spoken if you got married by the Justice of the Peace. They just didn't say "God" anywhere. Darat pointed out that their origin was civil, not religious.

It is my impression that Upchurch didn't like the view that they were legally binding, because he thought they were religious in nature as opposed to civil. His dogged insistence on that view is part of what led me to label him as an anti-religious bigot. He dusliked something, not because of what it did, but because of its association with religion.

You can state your own opinion if you feel a need to correct the record.

Well I remember hearing about how in the earlier part of the 20th century in NY, you had cases where a married couple conspired together to have one of them "cheat" on the other for the purposes of getting a divorce, as you needed something like this to qualify.

Also there is a different issue, isn't this just the state chooseing one religion and enforceing its rules? Where members of different sects held to different standards?

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, and they were. For those who missed that part, I had asserted that the marriage vows including love, honor...etc....death do us part constituted a legally binding contract at one time. That's not quite correct. The legally binding contract part was "I, Jane, take thee John, to be my husband." and "I John take thee Jane to be my wife." The state then defined what that meant. Of course, the state defined it for a long time to mean to mean exactly what the rest of the vows said it meant. Therefore, in practical terms, there was no difference at all until the state changed the marriage laws.

Upchurch spent a lot of time criticizing this view, citing their expression as part of a religious ceremony. Actually, though, they were part of a civil ceremony, that happened to take place, sometimes, in a church. The same vows were spoken if you got married by the Justice of the Peace. They just didn't say "God" anywhere. Darat pointed out that their origin was civil, not religious.

All of this asserted with out any support whatsoever, of course.

It is my impression that Upchurch didn't like the view that they were legally binding, because he thought they were religious in nature as opposed to civil. His dogged insistence on that view is part of what led me to label him as an anti-religious bigot. He dusliked something, not because of what it did, but because of its association with religion.

It is my impression that Meadmaker made a claim. I challenged him to back up that claim with evidence. After a great deal of searching, he was unable to locate anything to back that claim but asserted it anyway. His labeling me as anti-Catholic bigot was merely an attempt to discredit me rather than meeting my challenge of his claim or conceeding the point. As for the anti-Catholic/religious bigot claim, I provided several reasons why the idea is pretty much absurd. Again, it was met with simple re-assertion rather than providing reason to support his claim or conceeding the point.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
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.

Yes, because while Hitler was catholic and good friends with the Pope of that time, the RCC today aren't necessarily Nazis.

While Hitler was raised a Catholic, his adult words sounded much, much more like yours regarding religion and the Church:

Hitler:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar....

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise."

You:

Source

Christianity is simply a mental disorder.

Source

This case just further fuels my opinion that christianity is just stupid.

Source

Christians are stupid, and yes it would take a law against christianity to convince them

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
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.

...snip...

Apart from his own words you mean? He says that his positions are based on his belief and how he interprets his faith. He says he is a Roman Catholic so he says he will willingly obey the instructions of his Priest, Bishop, Cardinal and the Pope.

Homework time.

Linky, please.

 

[Huntster]

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.

.....These religions put homosexual relationships right up there with murder and theft, even the rape of a child (I hope I don’t need to spell out the differences again.).....

I thought you and I went through this with RCC doctrine and homosexuality.

Do I have to go back and resurrect it again?

How many times must that occur? Every page or two?

 

[Huntster]

...You might check out the Catholic treatment of women within the religion, for example.

I know many Catholic women, my mother, wife, and daughters among them. I don't need to "check" anything.

Make your accusation........

 

[Huntster]

The defintion is of bigot is (OED) "Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, or party; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and intolerant towards others."

Which part of that does not apply to the Roman Catholic church?

Which part of that does not apply to the pro-SSM movement?