Marriage Debate

[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?

No, but a fair response to the question would take a while. I'll answer later. If I have any sense, that will be a few days from now. You'll probably be able to read my answer tomorrow night.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
Yup.

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

Nope.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
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.

Cite where I've written that I want to "legislate homosexual behavior as illegal", and I'll cite were I've written the exact opposite.

Your opinion really does not have the authority of reality. (See sig line below........)

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.

Some sins are more "bad" than others. The worse is blaspheming God. (See sig lines below..............)

If everone is a sinner, why does he want to pick on the homosexuals in particular?

I don't.

It's like Harry Truman said, "I don't 'give them Hell'. I just tell the truth, and they think it's Hell."

 

[Huntster]

...Huntster is no Aquinas.

No doubt about that.

Never claimed to be, either.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

He's been rather inconsistent with his position. One thing is certain, he dislikes homosexuals based solely on their homosexuality.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Cite where I've written that I want to "legislate homosexual behavior as illegal", and I'll cite were I've written the exact opposite.

If you want to ban same-sex marriage, you are trying to legislate to make, at least, one aspect of homosexual behavior illegal.

 

[Darat]

...snip...
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.

That's just an appeal to tradition. We have plenty of evidence that the relative "ridiculousness" of a belief bears no correlation to the longevity or the popularity of a belief.

 

[Darat]

This isn't accurate.

In what way?

 

[Darat]

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.

 

[Meadmaker]

In what way?

Here's a one paragraph explanation of Vatican teaching on the subject of medical treatments of infertility:

The academy said that any treatment that substitutes for sex between a husband and wife is illicit because the embryo isn’t the fruit of the “conjugal union.” However, medical therapies are permitted that “facilitate” reproduction through sex between a husband and wife, the academy said. No examples were cited, but many Catholic theologians agree that fertility drugs and surgery to overcome tubal blockages are allowed.

Kinda goofy? Well, I think so, but it's not my religion.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's just an appeal to tradition. We have plenty of evidence that the relative "ridiculousness" of a belief bears no correlation to the longevity or the popularity of a belief.

What I meant was that those religions that have stood the test of time work for the people involved, and are internally consistent. I posted following one of those messages that said (quoting from memory) "So that means no sex after menopause?"

The Catholic Church has been around for close to 2000 years, and they have whole buildings full of theologians paid to sit around and think of stuff like this. Does anyone really believe that they're going to come up with some cute question that just exposes Catholicism as obvious idiocy? It may look stupid from the outside, but it wouldn't last for centuries if it was full of numerous and obvious contradictions that made it impossible for its adherents to live reasonable lives.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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 see no reason for membership in some organization to remove any concideration of individual bigotry. So the point that someone is a good catholic or member of any group and that removes them from being concidered a bigot is false. And I was useing more extreem examples to prove the point.

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.

Well the catholic church does have a clear record of supporting laws that inforce their morals on others.

And yes the catholic church is not as bad, but the comparison was not between the catholic church and the nazi party, the idea that membership in an organization can have any meaning on weather someone is a bigot or not. Being catholic does not exuse any behavior, any more than being KKK or Nazi or the westboro baptist church(they are just supporting their religion after all so they can't be bigots by your logic, and there is nothing wrong with their protests of army funeral saying that it is punishment from god for americas acceptance of homosexuality).

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

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

"Sex must have the possibility of procreation or it is sinful"

This is logicaly the equivelant of "all A is B", where A is "sex with out the possibility of procreation" and B is "Is Sinful".

Any problems with that reasoning?

Now with modern medicine we have a much more accuate idea of what conditions consitute A, so we can more accurately determine what the blanket statement really means, so we can look to see if the actions recomended by the church fit with such a basis.

So if that statement is true then sex with a pregnant woman must be sinful, now you could make an agruement that is it not as sinful as say using a condom or having anal sex, but it must be a sin.

Also just because people believe things does not mean that they are logicaly self consistent. So any statement that "this is old so it must be right" is entirely meaningless.

 

[Upchurch]

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 see no reason for membership in some organization to remove any concideration of individual bigotry. So the point that someone is a good catholic or member of any group and that removes them from being concidered a bigot is false. And I was useing more extreem examples to prove the point.

{snip}

And yes the catholic church is not as bad, but the comparison was not between the catholic church and the nazi party, the idea that membership in an organization can have any meaning on weather someone is a bigot or not. Being catholic does not exuse any behavior, any more than being KKK or Nazi or the westboro baptist church(they are just supporting their religion after all so they can't be bigots by your logic, and there is nothing wrong with their protests of army funeral saying that it is punishment from god for americas acceptance of homosexuality).

What s/he said, which was said very well.

Membership in an organization does not relinquish one's responsibility for one's words and actions.

 

[Darat]

What I meant was that those religions that have stood the test of time work for the people involved, and are internally consistent. I posted following one of those messages that said (quoting from memory) "So that means no sex after menopause?"

I would argue the "internally consistent" in regards to the Roman Catholic doctrine.

The Catholic Church has been around for close to 2000 years, and they have whole buildings full of theologians paid to sit around and think of stuff like this. Does anyone really believe that they're going to come up with some cute question that just exposes Catholicism as obvious idiocy? It may look stupid from the outside, but it wouldn't last for centuries if it was full of numerous and obvious contradictions that made it impossible for its adherents to live reasonable lives.

You are wrong. The question of evil is one simple question they had close to 2000 years to answer and they are still floundering with today. Another one is the omnipotent paradox (i.e. can god create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it ?) There are plenty of very simple questions that have been asked for centuries (that the Roman Catholic church cannot answer without an appeal to faith) that expose (in your words not mine) the obvious idiocy of the Roman Catholic doctrine.

The evidence would suggest that there is no link between the "obvious idiocy" of a particular belief and either it's longevity or popularity.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Then please show their statements in terms of logical proofs.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here's a one paragraph explanation of Vatican teaching on the subject of medical treatments of infertility:



Kinda goofy? Well, I think so, but it's not my religion.

But you are claiming it is logical, so you need to show how that position can be derived from the starting assumptions about morality.

A position does not need to be logicaly self concistent to be popular.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What I meant was that those religions that have stood the test of time work for the people involved, and are internally consistent. I posted following one of those messages that said (quoting from memory) "So that means no sex after menopause?"

The Catholic Church has been around for close to 2000 years, and they have whole buildings full of theologians paid to sit around and think of stuff like this. Does anyone really believe that they're going to come up with some cute question that just exposes Catholicism as obvious idiocy? It may look stupid from the outside, but it wouldn't last for centuries if it was full of numerous and obvious contradictions that made it impossible for its adherents to live reasonable lives.

They also very strictly regulate who can look in their archives. And you need to do something to demonstrate that long held beliefs are logical.

I can see many that people would not argue today are logical, racial superiority, the superiority of men over women and so on. These where long held beliefs, and so perfectly logical untill they where not.

Also it does not take an idiot to make a logical mistake, very smart people are very very good at convinceing themselves and others of what they want to believe is actualy supported. Inteligence does not mean there are no logical mistakes or contradictions.

I am not saying they are stupid, just wrong, and you should not confuse the two.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

The Catholic Church has been around for close to 2000 years, and they have whole buildings full of theologians paid to sit around and think of stuff like this.

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?

For the one I’m most interested in, I searched the RCC web site for “hermaphrodite” and "intersexed" and got “Search result: Nothing”. I really want to see this explanation if it’s there.

And Sarah? Sure, many women, apparently barren, may simply have very low odds. I don’t recall though Sarah being said to have been past menopause or being without a uterus and ovaries, as some women are. Some men are without testicles. Is there an explanation for how a fertile man could morally and knowingly marry and have sex with a person they know is absolutely infertile, and thus know their sex is always closed to procreation? Or is that moral distinction solely based on if the person he marries and has sex with is apparently male or female, having nothing to do with openness to procreation?

And again, if one is going to claim Sarah was past menopause or without the anatomy and a supernatural miracle occurred, then all bets are off. All sex, every union, may be said to be open to the possibility of creating a child.