Marriage Debate

[Meadmaker]

I used to be Catholic. The church never excommunicated me. According to what Darat said, I'm a Catholic.

It's Friday. Pass the fish, but make sure it has fins and scales.

 

[Darat]

Gee, I'm a Catholic!

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

If you were baptised and confirmed then yes as far as the only people who can say whether you are a Catholic or not i.e. the Church then yes you are still a Catholic.

(ETA) I was slightly wrong, confirmation is not required.

http://www.catholic.com/library/How_to_Become_a_Catholic.asp

...snip...

A person who is baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a Catholic at that moment. One’s initiation is deepened by confirmation and the Eucharist, but one becomes a Catholic at baptism. This is true for children who are baptized Catholic (and receive the other two sacraments later) and for adults who are baptized, confirmed, and receive the Eucharist at the same time.

...snip...

 

[Upchurch]

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.

It also worked in the 1950's and 60's with the Civil Rights movement. I don't suppose you looked up those quotes I posted earlier?

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.

So, that is different than my summarization:

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.​

not because it is less unjust or less unequal, which doesn't really concern you, but is otherwise correct?

 

[Meadmaker]

It also worked in the 1950's and 60's with the Civil Rights movement. I don't suppose you looked up those quotes I posted earlier?

I didn't have to. The ones I recognized were from a rather famous Baptist minister. I assume all of them were.

So, that is different than my summarization:

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.​

not because it is less unjust or less unequal, which doesn't really concern you, but is otherwise correct?

One difference. I am not saying that I am unconcerned about it being "less unjust". I am saying it is not "less unjust". Justice would be served regardless of how you did it, so it doesn't matter which path you took.

The difference is that your message suggests I'm unconcerned with justice or lack thereof. That's not true. I am unconcerned with equality, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Upchurch]

One difference. I am not saying that I am unconcerned about it being "less unjust". I am saying it is not "less unjust". Justice would be served regardless of how you did it, so it doesn't matter which path you took.

The difference is that your message suggests I'm unconcerned with justice or lack thereof. That's not true. I am unconcerned with equality, but that's not the same thing.

Not the same thing in this case or in any case?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

That is a pretty easy one really, I have never seen anyone who is a proponent of SSM try to get something passed that would say prevent catholics from marrying.

To use an extreem example, someone walks into a jewish temple in full SS uniform saying "heil hitler", people there do not like him, are they bigots?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

You mean they lied about that?

 

[Meadmaker]

Not the same thing in this case or in any case?

(I can't help but wonder if the purpose of this is trying to understand a position, or hoping to get a quick, out of context quote which can then be pointed to for some sort of debate-winning point. I'll proceed based on the former.)

Not the same in this case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Weather I object to their first priniples or not is irrelevent. The issue here is can you decry use of contraceptives as immoral and not decry sex between infertal couples from the first priniples stated.

So if the first priciple is "contraceptives are bad" then it is not proved from first principles but simply assumed as an axiom. If it can be dirrived from a stated set of first priniples and not made up on a case by case basis on how much it skwicks the chuch as a group. I will concied that it is logicaly internaly concistent.

I will not concede that it is correct, but that is a different issue than saying it is not logical, because you can still debate first principles, but things that do legitimatly flow from them either way must fit logic.

So you are wrong. I would conceed that they are logical if presented with evidence. There might be cases where you need things like an objective definition of natural and the like.

The case in point would be like this "homosexuality is an unnatural act" and "unnatural acts are sinful" well with those two first principles you can prove that homosexuality is sinful, of course you would also be assuming your conclusion, and it is really no more logical that simply stateing "homosexuality is sinful". Now if you had a good working definition of unnatural act, and then any thing that fit that definition was sinful, you would be getting to a logical postion.

 

[Upchurch]

(I can't help but wonder if the purpose of this is trying to understand a position, or hoping to get a quick, out of context quote which can then be pointed to for some sort of debate-winning point. I'll proceed based on the former.)

No, it's trying to understand. I think you're position is fundamentally wrong. I'm trying to walk you through why, but to do that I need you to walk through your reasoning.

Not the same in this case.

What is different in this case that keeps this from being an issue of justice as well?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Well sure the killing of jews might have been something the church might have had some small issues with, but he was also killing homosexuals, so you can see their dilema

 

[Meadmaker]

Weather I object to their first priniples or not is irrelevent. The issue here is can you decry use of contraceptives as immoral and not decry sex between infertal couples from the first priniples stated.

If you are truly interested in Catholic teachings on this subject, the first principles applied, and the logic used to arrive at a policy based on those principles, you might find this document interesting:

http://www.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't have to. The ones I recognized were from a rather famous Baptist minister. I assume all of them were.




One difference. I am not saying that I am unconcerned about it being "less unjust". I am saying it is not "less unjust". Justice would be served regardless of how you did it, so it doesn't matter which path you took.

The difference is that your message suggests I'm unconcerned with justice or lack thereof. That's not true. I am unconcerned with equality, but that's not the same thing.

Wrong, you are advocateing something that would be legaly distict from marriage, and it would become easy to have something that applied to marriage but not what ever. If they are legaly identical then there can be no legal distiction.

I guess the womens sufferage and civil rights movements where also wrong for trying to upset traddition far to much and they should have been happier with smaller stopgap measures.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, it's trying to understand. I think you're position is fundamentally wrong. I'm trying to walk you through why, but to do that I need you to walk through your reasoning.


What is different in this case that keeps this from being an issue of justice as well?

You aren't trying to understand, then. You think you already understand, and are just helping me to see the error of my ways. Very generous. It never hurts to scrutinize one's own position and examine it for inconsistencies. You can play the role of Socrates. Let's proceed.

An injustice occurs when someone is denied fundamental rights. (Unless it's absolutely necessary, we won't bother trying to decide what those are. Feel free to bring up some case where you think someone is denied one, if it's central to the case.) Giving a different name to one relationship vs. another does not deny anyone a fundamental right. Nor would any other legislative solution that guaranteed the rights.

You asked "what is different", although you didn't ask "different from what". It would be impossible to compare this case with every other case, so I won't try. I can't think of any other case that is a good comparison to this case, but if you come up with a specific case you wish to compare it to, I'll compare it to whatever you wish.

 

[Upchurch]

You asked "what is different", although you didn't ask "different from what". It would be impossible to compare this case with every other case, so I won't try. I can't think of any other case that is a good comparison to this case, but if you come up with a specific case you wish to compare it to, I'll compare it to whatever you wish.

My apologies, I thought it was obvious. My mistake

In essence, you are saying that civil unions would be just despite being unequal. Why is inequality just for SSM but the inequality inherent in the "separate but equal" policies of racial segregation unjust?

What is the critical difference between the two situations that, in your mind, allows one inequailty to be just and another to be unjust?

 

[Meadmaker]

In essence, you are saying that civil unions would be just despite being unequal. Why is inequality just for SSM but the inequality inherent in the "separate but equal" policies of racial segregation unjust?

What is the critical difference between the two situations that, in your mind, allows one inequailty to be just and another to be unjust?

I can think of two, very quickly. There are probably others.

First, in the case of "separate but equal" laws, it was very obvious that, in practice, the two were not equal. It was said that blacks only schools were equal to whites only schools, but in every case where there was school segregation, the black schools were inevitably underfunded, poorly maintained, poorly equipped, etc. Therefore, one of the reasons they were rejected is that they were not equal at all.

Second, "separate but equal" laws still restricted a fundamental right, which was the freedom of association. Whites weren't allowed to associate with blacks. Blacks weren't allowed to associate with whites. If we had opposite sex marriages and same sex civil unions, everyone would still be free to associate with whichever gender one wished, joining in either sort of union he chose.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you are truly interested in Catholic teachings on this subject, the first principles applied, and the logic used to arrive at a policy based on those principles, you might find this document interesting:

http://www.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I tried reading that, but it is not written to clearly and concisely show what the principals they started with and what the conclusions they reached. I see nothing of first principles and how the reached the conclusion stated there.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can think of two, very quickly. There are probably others.

First, in the case of "separate but equal" laws, it was very obvious that, in practice, the two were not equal. It was said that blacks only schools were equal to whites only schools, but in every case where there was school segregation, the black schools were inevitably underfunded, poorly maintained, poorly equipped, etc. Therefore, one of the reasons they were rejected is that they were not equal at all.

Second, "separate but equal" laws still restricted a fundamental right, which was the freedom of association. Whites weren't allowed to associate with blacks. Blacks weren't allowed to associate with whites. If we had opposite sex marriages and same sex civil unions, everyone would still be free to associate with whichever gender one wished, joining in either sort of union he chose.

What about bringing back anti-miscegenation rules that say define marriage as only between two members of the same race and civil unions as being between members of different races.

 

[Meadmaker]

I see nothing of first principles and how the reached the conclusion stated there.

That says more about you than it does about Pope Paul VI and his writing. As I said, it wil take more than a few minutes. I didn't understand Plato the first time read his writing, either, but he has quite a good reputation for being logical.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Dave:

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.

Yes, I agree, they generally think things out well and in detail. Each word seems chosen so very carefully. Oftentimes I’ve noticed they seem to adeptly both leave as much room to maneuver as possible if needed in the future and still put a foot down, frustratingly so in some cases, like “unjust” discrimination. I can only imagine the process before the thinking is spoken in public or posted on the RCC web site.

But, I could have wonderfully logical and thought out ideas about cosmology, with a premise that the world is flat. And I could just avoid saying anything regarding the evidence to the contrary.

When you are talking about gays you are talking about people who experience life partially hermaphroditically, and before laying down the law about sex and marriage, it makes a lot of sense to me to put an opinion out on people who are hermaphroditic, in the more obvious way of their anatomy and genes.

If there is some sort of premise about the supernatural nature of humans being either male or female, there’s a problem in need of address. If marriage is only between a man and a woman, are they going to bite the bullet and ask to hermaphrodites to stop marrying? Stop having sex? Or entering the priesthood? They can't just ignore it and rest on the laurels of fine logic elsewhere.

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.

It is tough to talk about a hermaphrodite , particularly when they get to choose their legal pronouns to match their mind, and sometimes legal needs, regardless of how they appear.

Anyway, I don’t know any, but I’m sure many of the… let’s see… approximately 535,000 hermaphroditic Catholics in the world have been married by the church. Of those I’m also sure some of them had the same priest at their birth and marriage, and some of those had parents concerned enough to ask him for council on their baby’s sensitive “condition”. I’m also sure some hermaphrodites are devout enough Catholics to worry and ask their priest before marriage.

But unlike homosexuality, a condition not apparent on the body (unless you quantify finger lengths ), they probably just got a humane pass. Again, the RCC certainly knows it’s out there, right? They’ve known for a long time. I’m getting the impression it’s just very inconvenient to work these humans into the reasoning.

Still, if the rule is only sex open to procreation, there remain the issues surrounding those who know they are permanently infertile and the people, fertile or no, who marry and have sex with them. I’d really expect that one to be common enough to be right in the RCC web site, particularly if their logic on it is up to their par.