Marriage Debate

[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?

The intolerant part, especially where it involves homosexuals. It is specifically addressed in RCC doctrine:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Source

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The intolerant part, especially where it involves homosexuals. It is specifically addressed in RCC doctrine:


Source

Except for preaching that they are living in sin, and making sure they can't marry one another. That doesn't constitute discrimination of any kind.

 

[Upchurch]

Except for preaching that they are living in sin, and making sure they can't marry one another. That doesn't constitute discrimination of any kind.

And women, they can't be priests, bishops, cardinals, or pope because, you know, their women. But that isn't discrimination either?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And women, they can't be priests, bishops, cardinals, or pope because, you know, their women. But that isn't discrimination either?

Certainly not. God made men to be the bosses, and women to do what we say and like it. Just as God made some people so that we can sneer at them for being the way God made them.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Huntster:

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?

Honestly Huntster, it’s been at least 5 pages.

Okay, I was lumping many religions in that sentence (thinking primarily of those I deal with most) and should have been more careful. Still they do exactly what I said in what you quoted.

Let’s see… The opinion of the RCC was (my bold):

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."

(Not sure what connotation “disordered” is supposed to give here? Is it bad? Really bad? Is there more entropy in a homosexual act than in a heterosexual act? Could we measure it with a calorimeter... )

They are contrary to the natural law

(If only; then we’d have no gays or “homosexual acts”, in the human or animal world, but it is an effective way to debase someone for doing what you’d okay if their anatomy were a bit different.)

Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

In the context of the conversation Dave and I were having, that seems strong enough to me for the point I was making. Where is our disagreement?

To be clear, I’m not asking or you or any Catholic to back down from it. In a way, I respect even the folks like Phelps for their willingness to be upfront and take the hits for their faith’s strong take on the moral position of homosexuality, instead of keeping it hidden (though, I respect that man for nothing else ).

Anyway, on the scale of the depravity of an action, where do you see the “grave depravity” of an homosexual act falling? Where does the RCC see it? Around what other deprave acts? Because I know a lot of the conservative and faithful crowd don’t respond to their gay kids in the tame way Dave felt was okay.

----
Again, Do you have a link or know of any opinion on hermaphrodites from the RCC?

Also, I’d still be interested to know the answer to those questions about heterosexual couples that are certain they are infertile.

Dave, you find anything?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The intolerant part, especially where it involves homosexuals. It is specifically addressed in RCC doctrine:

Except for preaching that they are living in sin....

The doctrine is that we all live in sin, homosexual or not.

If you wish to remain "perfect", don't become Catholic.

and making sure they can't marry one another....

The RCC can not "make sure" that homosexuals cannot legally marry each other in the United States. They have stated their religious position regarding the matter, and Americans will address it politically, either via a vote of the people/legislatures/Congress, or let a few judges decide the matter for us by fiat.

You can whine, stomp your feet, kick and scream, call the Huntster a bigot, and whatever else you wish to your heart's content. The above facts are not going to change.

Get over it, boy.

 

[Huntster]

...In the context of the conversation Dave and I were having, that seems strong enough to me for the point I was making. Where is our disagreement?

With these words:

These religions put homosexual relationships right up there with murder and theft, even the rape of a child....

That is not doctrine. I've got several Catholic-haters on the line here. They need constant and repeated citations of RCC doctrine, yet (due to their dance steps) insist on more repeats. I didn't think you were among them.

To be clear, I’m not asking or you or any Catholic to back down from it. In a way, I respect even the folks like Phelps for their willingness to be upfront and take the hits for their faith’s strong take on the moral position of homosexuality, instead of keeping it hidden (though, I respect that man for nothing else ).

I don't know Phelps, but if you call the silliness in this thread regarding Catholicism "hits", he's cruising easy.

Anyway, on the scale of the depravity of an action, where do you see the “grave depravity” of an homosexual act falling?

Depravity:

Moral corruption or degradation.
A depraved act or condition.

I'd say the the RCC wording of "grave depravity" can be taken to mean "serious degrading." And I would agree.

Where does the RCC see it? Around what other deprave acts?

I haven't searched the RCC websites, but I doubt sins like murder, theft, or rape are described in those terms. I believe such sins are considered mortal sins:

A grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner (sanctifying grace), constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act, and full consent of the will

Compare that with the glossary definition of Homosexuality:

Sexual attraction or orientation toward persons of the same sex and/or sexual acts between persons of the same sex. Homosexual acts are morally wrong because they violate God's purpose for human sexual activity

Because I know a lot of the conservative and faithful crowd don’t respond to their gay kids in the tame way Dave felt was okay.

"Conservative and faithful" crowds are not exempt from sin.

 

[Meadmaker]

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?

What I mean is that I've read an awful lot of Catholic philosophy, and the logic in it is pretty strong. I haven't specifically read anything about hermaphroditism, but I'm guessing that their logic in that area is every bit as strong as it is everywhere else.

Also, I understand that these people are not hypothetical, but until one of them presents himself (pardon the limiations of the language) before a priest asking to be married, and the priest can't decide which side of the aisle he should stand on, it's a hypothetical situation.

 

[Meadmaker]

When I was a Catholic, I was taught that homosexual acts were considered just as bad as rape, murder, and deliberately skipping mass.


ETA: A lot of people won't get that. The point is that there were lots and lots of ways to sin, and one wasn't worse than the other as far as God was considered. There were two types of sins, mortal and venial. The few that fell into the latter category were really, really, minor things.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Well you won't find it here, and it will take more than a few minutes when you do find it. Also, it seems unlikely you will call it "proof" because you will almost certainly reject their first principles.

It isn't hard to find. If you truly want to find it. I'm not sure you actually do.

 

[Meadmaker]

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?

I won't give a full answer. I'm trying (honest) to be briefer than is my wont.

I think that is what you should do for political expediency. You're trying to overturn thousands of years of tradition, and you're demanding it in one fell swoop. That's bad tactics.

In fact, it's such bad tactics, that I think your motives have to be questioned. In my opinion, what matters is the protection of people's interests. If you passed legislation that guaranteed homosexuals the ability to share property, and the ability to adopt children, and the ability create power of attorney, etc. etc. it wouldn't matter whether you called it "marriage" or "civil union" or if you passed 87 individual pieces of legislation that coincidentally protected the interests of all those people, even without creating anything that was separate or equal or whatever. The point is that there are a lot of different ways to accomplish what is truly necessary. If this is all about rights, then the terms used to describe it wouldn't matter.

However, if you passed those 87 pieces of enabling legislation, there is one thing you wouldn't accomplish. You wouldn't destroy the legal concept that there is something unique about the relationship between a man and a woman. I think you find it important to destroy that concept, not because of any rights withheld as a consequence, but becuase it's a concept you truly dislike. It seems likely that you dislike the concept because of its religious associations.

I advocate same sex marriages, with reluctance, because people like Scot are living under the same conditions that married couples have lived in. As a consequence, they need the same protections that married couples have enjoyed. For example, they need to know that if one of them makes a decision that hurts himself economically, but helps the family, he won't have to worry that the other will end the union and leave him with nothing.

Of course, if your view of marriage prevails, that won't work for him, because his partner would have no legal obligations. As with my 40 year old friend, if one partner decides after half a lifetime together that he wants out, it;s "Tough cookies. Get over it" for the other.

If the choice for civil unions presented itself, I'd vote for that. If a legislative solution presented itself with no name, I'd vote for that. I don't think justice and equality are the same thing, so neither one is more "just" than the other. Meanwhile, I want something that would protect my forty year old friend from what happened to her. Right now, it seems to me that covenant marriage is the best hope for that, so of all the proposals on the table, that's the one I currently favor.

 

[Darat]

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

All of it.

 

[Darat]

The intolerant part, especially where it involves homosexuals. It is specifically addressed in RCC doctrine:


Source

Lets have a look at what the last but one Pope had to say about same sex marriage and homosexuality (edited from a thread I started about this subject: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=985487)

".... I've just finished reading "Memories & Identity" - Personal reflections of Pope John Paul II. (The geezer in teh funny dress that just died.)

Just before the book was published several press stories came out decrying the following quote:

"...It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man..."

(See this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53105&highlight=ideology)


...snip...


I've now read the book "Memory and Identity" and from context I can say that he is meaning that there is an argument that the EU by saying same sex unions are OK is another "ideology of evil".

The full quote is:

"I am thinking, for example, of the strong pressure from the European Parliament to recognise homosexual unions as an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children. "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."

Just to put this in context the other "ideologies of evil" he identifies in his book are Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's communism, so homosexual unions are equivalent to the Holocaust and Stalin's death camps.

Good to know where we stand.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

They teach that homosexuality is wrong for irrational reasons. That qualifies them as a bigotted organization.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

Hitler's anti-christian and catholic "quotes" are all just hearsay. He never publicly denounced the church, in fact, he affirmed that the church and state should be one and the same and that non-believers are bad.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/hitler&bishop.gif
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/hitler_cardinal4.jpg
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/concordat.jpg
Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signs the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933. Nazi Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen sits at the left, Pacelli in the middle, and the Rudolf Buttmann sits at the right.

The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world.

 

[Darat]

If you wish to argue to what extent Hitler believed in his Catholicism (it cannot be argued that Hitler was not a Catholic since the RCC never excommunicated him) I suggest you take it to this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167

 

[thaiboxerken]

If you wish to argue to what extent Hitler believed in his Catholicism (it cannot be argued that Hitler was not a Catholic since the RCC never excommunicated him)

Actually, I think you just settled that dispute in much simpler terms than I would've thought. Thanks.

Pee on a wafer.. get excommunicated...... kill several million jews.. still in the church.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The doctrine is that we all live in sin, homosexual or not.

If you wish to remain "perfect", don't become Catholic.

Though Catholic doctrine says we're all sinners, it is not true that they say we're all equally sinful. Some things are categorically considered more sinful than others. Homosexuality is currently fairly high on that list merely because Harvey the White Rabbit said so.

The RCC can not "make sure" that homosexuals cannot legally marry each other in the United States. They have stated their religious position regarding the matter, and Americans will address it politically, either via a vote of the people/legislatures/Congress, or let a few judges decide the matter for us by fiat.

You can whine, stomp your feet, kick and scream, call the Huntster a bigot, and whatever else you wish to your heart's content. The above facts are not going to change.

Get over it, boy.

You have been maintaining that marriage is religious in nature. The Catholic church won't perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex. You wouldn't actually be say, expressing an inconsistency in your views, now would you?

 

[Meadmaker]

(it cannot be argued that Hitler was not a Catholic since the RCC never excommunicated him)

Gee, I'm a Catholic!

I'll have to start calling myself an atheist agnostic pantheist Unitarian Buddhist Jewish Catholic now.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Gee, I'm a Catholic!

I'll have to start calling myself an atheist agnostic pantheist Unitarian Buddhist Jewish Catholic now.

Don't be obtuse. That's stating that you are a Catholic. It's more diffcult to prove Hitler was a "believer" in Catholicism than it is to prove he was never removed from the Chruch's Chicken.