Marriage Debate

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Rather odd thoughts, as he never stated his principles at the begining, but started talking about conlusions right away. I wanted a clearly stated chain of reasoning from first priciples to conclusions. That is not what that is.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Darat :
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?

All of it.

Well, then. By the same reasoning, none of it can apply to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

I'm curious to see where Upchurch will go with this, so I'll resist the temptation to branch the discussion on points I bring up with him in this Socratic exercise. If you want the answer to that one, you'll have to convince him to walk me through that part.

 

[Meadmaker]

Does any government, religious or secular, anywhere, have laws dealing with Hermaphrodites? In the US outside of Massachusetts, you can only get married male to female. What happens with Hermaphrodites? My guess is that they get to choose, and if someone demands proof of gender for some reason, the judge generally just says, "No. That's ok. I'll take your word for it."

In googling, I found one amusing incident from US History. An election was to be held in a small town, and everyone knew it would be very very close. One person in town was known to be a Whig supporter, but was generally assumed to be a woman. "He" presented himself to vote, this was when women weren't allowed the vote, and an argument ensued. The doctor was called in, certified him as male, even though he reported considerable difficulty in making the determination, what with the fact that "he" menstruated every month and all, and "he" was allowed to vote.

The Whigs won by one vote.

The article did not mention whether the doctor was a Whig supporter.

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.

That's not the rule. "Humanae Vitae", which is the document I linked for ponderingturtle, does discuss it. However, they do exactly what you said they do, choosing their words very carefully. What they say, more or less, was that God made them infertile, so it's ok.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Huntster:

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:

Seems then homosexuality (or murder, or missing Mass ) is only a mortal sin if the homosexual thinks it’s a sin? Kismet!

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

Okay.

Let me get to what seems, to me, the heart of this matter then, and I’ll be specific to the RCC this time. I’d like to know if and where you’d disagree.

[Man, this got way too long (Dave knows the trouble ); I wouldn’t feel bad if you just skip it but it’s my attempt to explain some of the response you’re getting]

I think the Catholic church is hostile to homosexuals, all the people who are attracted only to a sex they happen to also be, not only the people involved in so-called homosexual acts. Not that they all hate homosexuals or that all Catholics are bigots (though some certainly do and are, as in any group). Many of them are even hostile certain it’s for the homosexual’s own good.

I think the RCC doctrine is hostile because asking a person to live a life of celibacy or a life that involves sex with a sex, male or female, they find repelling and unnatural when they certainly aren’t wanting that, hurts that person. Teaching them one of the most important, deep, and instinctual routs to happiness in their life is immoral harms them as well. It limits them and opposes their nature (But that isn’t always a bad thing).

It doesn’t matter even if the RCC saw such things as the least depraved of sins; there’s a minimum of harm done to a person in the moral classification of something they derive such joy from on the evil side. Though, sure, the intensity of the “asking” of people to refrain from such acts can raise the harm from its minimum substantially; gays certainly don’t want the loving and just discrimination of the inquisition days again.

I hope it’s clear that such a moral declaration would hurt any person, straight or gay, as in my example of a gay father teaching his heterosexual son that heterosexual sex and couplings are immoral. That would hurt the kid, right?

Lastly, I think it’s problematic for a Catholic to resist characterizing the RCC doctrine as hostile to homosexuals. There are many more people, and I think you’d agree, the RCC’s doctrine is hostile towards and near everyone is fine with it. Kleptomaniacs, for a minor example; the RCC asks them to resist an urge they experience and to refrain from something that gives them pleasure. The church feels love and respect for their humanity, but they still oppose and cause them a pain that would not be there if the RCC just said, “Okay, theft is now moral.”

Of course, to us both, the RCC is rightly hostile in that instance, and we both think the Kleptomaniac should live a “celibate” life, never stealing from another. I am, in fact, openly hostile to Kleptomaniacs in that way, even though an aunt I love is one. I’m sure it hurts her to know what family thinks of her, but I’m not going to change or deny it.

Clearly though, on this one, you and I hold different morals, and I don’t expect to change your mind on homosexuality anymore than you could change mine on left-handedness . Still, I can’t imagine why a Catholic would hesitate in saying their church is hostile to homosexuals, unless they fear retaliation or actually do see a problem with calling the results of the defining drive of a homosexual a sin.

I’m just tired of cushioning, focusing on love of the sinner, and talking about resisting “unjust” discrimination against them, and then avoiding the fact real harm and pain is caused in the homosexual. I’ve seen it too many times, and for many kids it can be devastating. Just don’t pretend it’s not real.

Actually, you probably don’t. You said it yourself in some different phrasing I think; telling some people the RCC version of truth feels “like hell” to them. It feels horrible to be put in such a position, just as it would for, say, a kid drawn to Catholicism in the face of the version of truth presented by their strict Muslim household.

But, back on topic, I just want to be clear. This hostility is what causes your opposition to use words like hate. For reasons such as the fact that the religion calls a sexual orientation noble, natural, and God-given for one person and calls the same orientation a certain temptation for depravity when it occurs in another, claims of bias, and bigotry are made. Even though the intensity and even intent may be lacking in your mind, to the extent that such words are not accurate, it’s not easy to tell the difference.

Also, the fact that this fight initiates in the RCC makes the positions of the RCC and the pro-SSM movement nonsymmetrical. The fact that Group A attacks Group B’s because their beliefs cause Group B to attack Group A first, does not make the two groups equally hostile; one is responding to the other.

It’s these issues that create your opposition, and the “Catholic haters”, and if you hold faith in the RCC, fine, but the reaction and strong opposition to their doctrin is inevitable, as we see here.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Do you think that civil unions will be genuinely equal to legal marriage and, if so, why?

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.

But civil unions would restrict another fundamental right, which is the freedom of religion. By discriminating between different religious definitions of marriage, the government is establishing some religions as more privilaged than others.

Is restriction of the fundamental right of freedom of religion more just than the fundamental right of freedom of association and, if so, why?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Civil Union is just a silly "compromise" anyway.

Think about it:
Civil Union invitations, have Civil Union receptions, wear a Civil Union Dress, Civil Union Cake, Civil Union vows, Civil Union rings...

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Does any government, religious or secular, anywhere, have laws dealing with Hermaphrodites? In the US outside of Massachusetts, you can only get married male to female. What happens with Hermaphrodites? My guess is that they get to choose, and if someone demands proof of gender for some reason, the judge generally just says, "No. That's ok. I'll take your word for it."

In googling, I found one amusing incident from US History. An election was to be held in a small town, and everyone knew it would be very very close. One person in town was known to be a Whig supporter, but was generally assumed to be a woman. "He" presented himself to vote, this was when women weren't allowed the vote, and an argument ensued. The doctor was called in, certified him as male, even though he reported considerable difficulty in making the determination, what with the fact that "he" menstruated every month and all, and "he" was allowed to vote.

The Whigs won by one vote.

The article did not mention whether the doctor was a Whig supporter.

Why is it the hermaphrodites are always drawn to the Whig’s camp?

I’m unaware of any law and think you’re right. They just get a pass, no questions asked.

It will be interesting though if one of them goes though a nasty divorce with kids involved and the ex claims he/she was never married because of the hermaphrodite’s sex or lack thereof, in a state with one of these constitutional amendments.

That's not the rule. "Humanae Vitae", which is the document I linked for ponderingturtle, does discuss it. However, they do exactly what you said they do, choosing their words very carefully. What they say, more or less, was that God made them infertile, so it's ok.

I read that (and that portion) and didn’t pull much out of it of interest on this topic. It ain't easy.

If a fertile person knowingly marries a person who is permanently infertile because they are missing the anatomy necessary to combine with his to make children, they are choosing a marriage and sex closed to procreation. Similarly, if a gay man is only attracted to and only chooses partners that are also missing the necessary anatomy, they are doing the same (Edit: and if God makes people infertile He certainly makes them have or lack male or female anatomy). Is it a moral choice for the man if the person, missing the anatomy, he knowingly chooses is female but not if they are male? If so, what's then the reasoning?

What I also find odd then is this:

Man and woman experience in themselves the natural inclination to be joined in marriage. But marriage, as St Thomas states so clearly, is natural not because "it results by necessity from natural principles", but because it is a reality "to which one is inclined by nature, although it comes about through free will" (Summa Theol., Suppl., q. 41, a. 1, in c.). Any opposition, therefore, between nature and freedom or between nature and culture is extremely misleading.

From http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ocuments/hf_jp-ii_spe_04061999_family_en.html.

Clearly it wasn’t proof read by a gay member of the clergy or the language would have been tightened.

Gays also “experience in themselves the natural inclination to be joined in marriage” They innately form unions with people who don’t have the anatomy to make children, yet it’s okay for infertile people because God, say, gave the woman uterine cancer, but He’s above making people gay, or, when He does, that excuse suddenly doesn’t fly?

 

[ceo_esq]

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

Are we sure that he never incurred the penalty of excommunication? The vast majority of excommunications occur automatically without any formal pronouncement, and Hitler seems an almost certain candidate to have triggered one.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Civil Union is just a silly "compromise" anyway.

Think about it:
Civil Union invitations, have Civil Union receptions, wear a Civil Union Dress, Civil Union Cake, Civil Union vows, Civil Union rings...

Lol, that's why no one would do it.

The law says “civil union”, but the invitations say “wedding” and “marriage”. You just can’t stop the vocabulary from changing with law and it has already changed for many people.

 

[Earthborn]

What happens with Hermaphrodites? My guess is that they get to choose, and if someone demands proof of gender for some reason, the judge generally just says, "No. That's ok. I'll take your word for it."

If only...

Yes, many governments have laws dealing with hermaphrodites (or intersexed people as is the politically correct term) and they basically amount to this: Everyone Must Be Pidgeonholed Into One Of Two Categories (Biological Reality Be Darned).

They generally don't get to choose themselves which legal gender they belong to: it is decided for them shortly after birth. Usually they are made to conform to societal standards of binary sexuality through surgery, in most cases in female direction as it is assumed that it is easier to take something away than it is to attach something new.

When they are adults and feel that they should fit better in the opposite of their assigned gender, they will have to provide evidence to the court that they do. Their word is not enough.

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.

I'd love to see you present even a single case where the Catholic church knew about a person's intersexuality, and allowed a church marriage of em anyway. I don't think there is any such case, as I understand that the Catholic church considers intersex people as 'unmarriable'.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are we sure that he never incurred the penalty of excommunication? The vast majority of excommunications occur automatically without any formal pronouncement, and Hitler seems an almost certain candidate to have triggered one.

Which one?

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you think that civil unions will be genuinely equal to legal marriage and, if so, why?

"Genuinely equal"? What does that mean? We know exactly what the differences are, so whether you think they are genuinely equal would be determined by whether you think the name change is a "genuine" difference, or a phony difference.

At any rate, I was explaining that I wasn't concerned about equality, and certainly not about genuineness. You were going to walk me through my reasoning and show me how some legislative answer that provided the same set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities as enjoyed or borne by married people was unjust unless it also went by the same name. I'll assume this is some intermediate step.

I hate ducking a question, so I'll try to answer as best I can, with the provision that I am saying I'm not sure I understand it, so I might have to clarify later if my understanding improves. The name difference is a genuine difference, so the marriages and civil unions would be genuinely different. Now you still have to walk me through to the injustice part.

But civil unions would restrict another fundamental right, which is the freedom of religion.

I'm not sure I follow you. How does granting a civil union restrict anyone's religion? It looks like we still have some walking to do. The last time I checked, no one in Vermont was complaining that their religious freedom was being restricted. Maybe you need to walk to Vermont, too.

And, no matter what definition of marriage you pick, isn't it inevitably going to be closer to some people's religious concept of marriage than to others? I think that would be inevitable.

Besides, you said you would walk me through my logic, not yours. Well, whatever. Walk on. I expected to be answering questions, not reading statements.

Is restriction of the fundamental right of freedom of religion more just than the fundamental right of freedom of association and, if so, why?

Well, at least this one is easy. Religious freedom is just as fundamental as freedom of association. Any law that restricts religious freedom would be unjust.



(Of course, everyone understands that last absolute statement has to be modified somewhat, like when one person insists that his religion allows him to marry 12 year old girls. I would say he's still out of luck if I get to write the laws. I don't think we need to debate whether that makes it unjust or not. We agree that such a law would not be unjust, I think.)

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm reading a book about Cleopatra. She was identified with Isis, and the book includes the translation of a great list of things that Isis was responsible for. There was fruit, and the separation of Earth from heaven, and oh yes, "marriage contracts". Perhaps that is what Upchurch meant. I want to have marriage be thought of as a contract, which would unquestionably favor the Isis cult.

 

[nightwind]

Marriage

Well, marriage vows have become pretty much of a joke. How many lies of "death us do part" are uttered every minute of the day. Ha.

It seems to me that it is just a legal way in order to have a stake in property involved with parties and that is about it.

Could care less if someone wants to marry another woman, a man, their dog, etc.

The thinking of it binds two hearts together, blah, blah, blah, is nothing but bull.

If someone wants to get married, then fine, let them, if they do not, then that is fine also. It is no one's business but the parties involved.

If anyone feels that they should have the power to tell two people regardlesss of whether they are same or different gender, if they should get married or not, then you probably need to go and find some better way to occupy your time.

This is one of the biggest non-issues I have ever seen.

 

[Darat]

Well, then. By the same reasoning, none of it can apply to the Roman Catholic Church.

Will you actually put forward your reasoning?

 

[Darat]

Do you think that civil unions will be genuinely equal to legal marriage and, if so, why?

...snip...

When I posted my thread about my views on civil unions I expressed some of my thoughts regarding this very matter, I should take the time to update that thread because so far "civil union" in the UK is definitely a case of "separate and not equal".

For now I'll just add that a "civil union" in the UK is in fact disadvantageous in terms of financial matters compared to a marriage, a couple in civil union will be financially worse off (in some circumstances) to either an unmarried couple or a married couple. (Some of this is caused directly by the state, some of it by society).

 

[Darat]

Are we sure that he never incurred the penalty of excommunication? The vast majority of excommunications occur automatically without any formal pronouncement, and Hitler seems an almost certain candidate to have triggered one.

I've never seen nor read of this (and I don't just mean on the Internet or here, for instance it is not mentioned in Ian Kershaws' biography of Hitler) and we've had long, long discussions on Hitler's beliefs on this forum and its never been brought up. So granted I'm using "negative" evidence to form my opinion but I'll be surprised if it is the case since I've never come across it.

 

[Terry]

California Civil Unions are also inferior to marriage in some respects, and of course are not recognised by the federal government. So yeah, show us some of this "equal" before we talk about whether "seperate but equal" is just.

 

[Upchurch]

"Genuinely equal"? What does that mean?

Substitute "actually" for "genuinely", if you prefer.

You were going to walk me through my reasoning and show me how some legislative answer that provided the same set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities as enjoyed or borne by married people was unjust unless it also went by the same name.

See Darat's and Terry's posts for how a seperate set of laws meant to imitate another set of laws do not always turn out to be a 1:1 corrilation, especially when politicians are involved.

I'm not sure I follow you. How does granting a civil union restrict anyone's religion?

Not civil unions, the federal government legally recognizes some religions' marriages but not others. It constitutes government preference of some religions over others.

Well, at least this one is easy. Religious freedom is just as fundamental as freedom of association. Any law that restricts religious freedom would be unjust.

Good. I'm glad we agree.

(Of course, everyone understands that last absolute statement has to be modified somewhat, like when one person insists that his religion allows him to marry 12 year old girls. I would say he's still out of luck if I get to write the laws. I don't think we need to debate whether that makes it unjust or not. We agree that such a law would not be unjust, I think.)

This isn't a matter of someone entering into a marriage who is incapable of giving conscent.