Catholic And Gay

[stevil]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1323118173' post='2345071']
1.6 of the 6 billion people in the world live in China, and another billion live in India. 2.6/6 billion is 43% of the world's population. [/quote]
I would not consider China or India to be developed countries more between third world and emerging.

[Nihil Obstat]

It looks like Stevil isn't going to respond to my posts. Maybe I'm on ignore- I dunno. I think I've made decent objections, and I also think valid replies could be made, and I was looking forward to the debate, but maybe that's not going to happen. I don't think Stevil's apparent position is ultimately coherent, and if he disagrees I more than welcome a reply.

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323158883' post='2345409']
It looks like Stevil isn't going to respond to my posts. Maybe I'm on ignore- I dunno. I think I've made decent objections, and I also think valid replies could be made, and I was looking forward to the debate, but maybe that's not going to happen. I don't think Stevil's apparent position is ultimately coherent, and if he disagrees I more than welcome a reply.
[/quote]
I don't have unlimited time to type up posts, there have been quite a few people making posts that I have been responding to and probably many points that I have not responded to from various people. Please don't feel that I have singled you out or am ignoring you.
It is certainly not my intention to win this debate, merely to discuss ideas. Hence I don't feel the need to address all objections.

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323063453' post='2344788']
What right do you have to tell us Catholics that we need to change our teachings on homosexuality, or that our positions are discriminatory, if right and wrong don't exist? If objective morality doesn't exist, then it is somewhat absurd for you to bother even bother discussing, or even thinking about moral questions.
[/quote]
What right do I have?
I don't really understand your definition of the term "right". I often feel that theists use words that are ambiguous having slightly different meanings in a theistic context as opposed to an atheistic context. I know double meanings are often used as a debate technique to confuse the message that an opponent is trying to convey, thus trying to get the audience to think that the opponent is saying something that actually they are not. Because of this I am trying to be as articulate as possible when choosing my words to avoid confusion with my audience, which is overwhelmingly theist on this site.

When you speak of right, are you talking legal right? Of course I have a legal right to express my opinion on the Catholic Church's teachings.
If you are suggesting "intellectual" right, then I would humbly state that my opinion is limited to my current knowledge and understanding. I have not undertaken extensive research or studies with regards to the Catholic churches teachings.
If you are talking about a "universal" right, then I would say that I believe I have the universal right to act however I please, any imposed social or legal rules infringe on my universal rights. This is not to mean that I disagree with rules, I just recognise that they infringe rights and possibly there is a valid reason for society or government to impose these rules.
I think I have expressed this viewpoint enough, if you are struggling with this concept that I believe everything is a right, then please ask detailed questions so that I can elaborate, but I don't see any point in simply getting me to repeat this simple high level viewpoint.


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323107360' post='2344953']
You think it's undesirable. Do you think it's wrong? Or is it more... ill-advised than wrong? Would you tell a murderer "what you did was wrong"? Or would you just say "that was kind of lame man, I don't personally agree with you murdering people"?
If things are merely undesirable and not actually wrong, what right do you have to condemn it?
[/quote]
Who is to say what is wrong or right? There is no universal wrong or right. Society comes to a consensus on things, this represents a majority viewpoint and the minority are then violated. Government comes to an authoritative stance, this represents a authoritarian viewpoint where those in power think they know best or are selfish and do what best suits them. I have my own opinion and am willing to discuss it with others, but do not look to impose. I really don't like the words "right" and "wrong" as they are ambiguous and certainly theists have a different definition which relates these as a universal code from their god, which as an Atheist, I have no belief in.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323109892' post='2344977']
Is protecting society a good thing?
[/quote]
Again you are simply trying to bait me to reference things as good or bad, right or wrong. If I use these terms it has a different meaning to what you use and most of the audience on this forum uses. For clarity on this forum it is best for me not to use these terms otherwise it will lead to misunderstandings with regards to my viewpoint.
If we ask "Is protecting society a good thing?"
We certainly need to address what is meant by "good"
In what sense, by what reference?
Are we saying it is good for me, personally? or is it good for the society (a greater good, which might forsake the individual)? Are we saying universally good?
I feel that we would benefit from striving to create an inclusive, supportive society where we embrace each others differences and attempt to be non judgmental.
Although a strong case could be made that we should not protect the weak, that protecting our weak can deteriorate the benefits of evolution and hence risk our future existence. Basically, I don't have a black and white answer that you are looking for, reality is much more complex than that.
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323115982' post='2345043']
If there is no right and wrong, how can there be good and not good/bad?

How can the world be improving, if there is nothing objectively right to which it can improve?
Why is racial equality desirable, if there is no objective right?

How can we 'mature' if one end is as good as another? "Development" is an absurdity in a world where there is no objective right, because movement in one direction is equivalent to movement in another. You said that "the law" determines what is best for a society, but the law merely follows where society is already going. You said that as a society we're maturing, but that's not possible if there is no right and wrong. Society today must, by your logic, be exactly as proportionately right or wrong as society 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 2000 years ago, no matter what changes took place.
[/quote]
I don't understand your first line in this post.

"How can the world be improving..."
In my personal opinion, the world is becoming more inclusive, countries are becoming more secular and hence more accomodating for people belonging to a variety of religions and non religions. I really do like the idea of providing people with equal opportunity, this means removing discrimination, this is something that is important to me.
So in my personal opinion the world is improving.

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323150825' post='2345397']
Instead of telling them what they can and can't do, they are given choice, just like the men. Obviously there are still small pockets in society which are resistant to change, but thankfully these are dwindling.
[/quote]
We always have a choice. That does not mean our choice is the right, moral one.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323153299' post='2345402']
I would not consider China or India to be developed countries more between third world and emerging.
[/quote]

Of course. But as the 2 most populous nations in the world...most people live there, not here. Something that is important to remember when considering worldwide trends.


[quote]Instead of telling them what they can and can't do, they are given choice, just like the men. Obviously there are still small pockets in society which are resistant to change, but thankfully these are dwindling.[/quote]

My grandmother was college educated. She was an employee of the Manhattan Project. Just sayin'. There's always been a place in society for educated women. Of course, after the war, she got married and raised 6 kids. Seeing as how she was my *grandmother*, I'm glad she did that!

Yes, Marie Curie was unusual. But she existed. Lavoisier was able to read the work of the early English chemists because his young teenage wife translated their papers into French for him. There's an entire book called 'Medieval Women Writing Latin', and it's clear that the women writing these letters wrote on the same topics of the men of their time. And of course, many of these women were nuns, which meant they were not getting married or raising kids.

I guess my point is that there's always been this option, but that the modern 'career woman' is a new variation. And that while more jobs are open to women these days...that does not mean that society has more respect for women. Rape victims are still told that they were asking for it. Women are often dismissed as overly emotional/hysterical. And as I said, young girls are certainly given all sorts of messages that are empty and frivolous. This is *not* an improvement over teaching them that they should learn how to cook. Life is more about cooking than it is about being sexy and shopping.

[Nihil Obstat]

Stevil, you keep talking about society getting better. But you've already said that you reject the concepts of right and wrong and good and bad. At the very best, all you can be saying is that [i]you[/i] prefer the world now over the past. That's descriptive. From that you can (and have) said that you would prefer if certain further 'developments' happened, but again, all you can ever say is that it's what you'd personally prefer. What you can't say is that your preference is somehow more enlightened, or 'better' in any way, because such concepts 'don't exist',
Without an objective standard you have no coherent way of saying that the way you'd prefer is desirable. All you can say is that it's what you'd prefer. Therefore, given that we also have valid views on how the world should be, your own personal philosophy itself puts us on even footing, and gives you no way to deny ours, besides personal preference.
As they apparently say in Italy, you want your bottle full of wine and your wife drunk. Apparently that's their version of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323151094' post='2345398']
It depends on whose ideal you are talking about. There is no universal ideal.
I am all for minimal intervention of government, allowing people to have choice, responsibility, accountability, opportunity and to be in control of their own chosen destiny. Balancing a safe society with a free society is a difficult task as it is impossible to get everyone to agree on anything.
[/quote]

I'm not talking about any specific ideal, just an ideal.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323184185' post='2345487']
Stevil, you keep talking about society getting better. But you've already said that you reject the concepts of right and wrong and good and bad. At the very best, all you can be saying is that [i]you[/i] prefer the world now over the past. That's descriptive. From that you can (and have) said that you would prefer if certain further 'developments' happened, but again, all you can ever say is that it's what you'd personally prefer. What you can't say is that your preference is somehow more enlightened, or 'better' in any way, because such concepts 'don't exist',
Without an objective standard you have no coherent way of saying that the way you'd prefer is desirable. All you can say is that it's what you'd prefer. Therefore, given that we also have valid views on how the world should be, your own personal philosophy itself puts us on even footing, and gives you no way to deny ours, besides personal preference.
As they apparently say in Italy, you want your bottle full of wine and your wife drunk. Apparently that's their version of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
[/quote]

^ THAT.

[stevil]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1323174411' post='2345419']
We always have a choice. That does not mean our choice is the right, moral one.
[/quote]
Gay people in many countries cannot choose to get married. Governments and voters have taken that choice away from them.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323194475' post='2345571']
Gay people in many countries cannot choose to get married. Governments and voters have taken that choice away from them.
[/quote]

Federal recognition of one's marriage isn't a right, heterosexual or homosexual.

[stevil]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323184185' post='2345487']
Stevil, you keep talking about society getting better. But you've already said that you reject the concepts of right and wrong and good and bad. At the very best, all you can be saying is that [i]you[/i] prefer the world now over the past. That's descriptive.
[/quote]
Yes, finally I was thinking you understand what I am saying, it is a simple message after all.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323184185' post='2345487']
From that you can (and have) said that you would prefer if certain further 'developments' happened, but again, all you can ever say is that it's what you'd personally prefer. What you can't say is that your preference is somehow more enlightened, or 'better' in any way, because such concepts 'don't exist',
[/quote]
Precisely, you are running hot here.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323184185' post='2345487']
Without an objective standard you have no coherent way of saying that the way you'd prefer is desirable. All you can say is that it's what you'd prefer. Therefore, given that we also have valid views on how the world should be, your own personal philosophy itself puts us on even footing, and gives you no way to deny ours, besides personal preference.
[/quote]
I find discussing differences of opinions, very useful, it's a good way to learn something new, to understand how others think, maybe a good way to change ones own thinking to include some of the valid points that people have discussed. This is the way atheists generally operate, we consider things, think them through, debate with others and using our own intellect, our own knowledge and reasoning we come to a personal position. Sometimes we change our minds on things, although I have noticed that people are generally resistant to change.
But it is hard to discuss topics with theists because they first and foremost listen to their church thinking that the church represents a god as described in their holy scripture. They then tend to bestow all responsibility over to this and will not listen to an ungodly person like myself with regards to reasoning on something, e.g. I tell you it is OK (not right, not wrong, not good, not bad, not moral, not immoral) for gay people to love each other emotionally and physically, but your church tells you that the bible says it is a sin (bad, wrong, immoral) for gay people to love each other physically.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323184185' post='2345487']
As they apparently say in Italy, you want your bottle full of wine and your wife drunk. Apparently that's their version of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
[/quote]
Now this part of your post baffles me, somehow you think I am contradicting myself. I'm not sure where?

[stevil]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1323194539' post='2345573']

Federal recognition of one's marriage isn't a right, heterosexual or homosexual.
[/quote]
It's not a legal right.
But in my opinion everything is a right.
Law imposing that marriage must not be between two people of the same sex, infringes a person's rights and is completely unnecessary in this case. Governments ought to remove this discriminative restriction.

I'm sure Catholics would be angry if government outlawed the practice of marriage altogether.

Edited December 6, 2011 by stevil

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323194475' post='2345571']
Gay people in many countries cannot choose to get married. Governments and voters have taken that choice away from them.
[/quote]
That choice does not exist, just as my choice to get pregnant.

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323195530' post='2345590']
It's not a legal right.
But in my opinion everything is a right.
Law imposing that marriage must not be between two people of the same sex, infringes a person's rights and is completely unnecessary in this case. Governments ought to remove this discriminative restriction.

I'm sure Catholics would be angry if government outlawed the practice of marriage altogether.
[/quote]
Government is not required for marriage. God is.