Catholic And Gay

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323109819' post='2344975']

There is no objective right or wrong, there will be no judgement after death.
[/quote]
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323166925' post='2345415']
Who is to say what is wrong or right? There is no universal wrong or right.
[/quote]
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323201977' post='2345688']
Exactly, in my opinion there is no objective right or wrong.
[/quote]
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323206258' post='2345736']
"you stated objectively"; these are your words not mine
[/quote]
Just sayin


[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]

I'm a bit confused as to precisely what you believe a right is. Wikipedia defines rights as
[quote]
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement, that is, rights are the fundamental rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.
[/quote]

Obviously, most phatmassers would follow along the lines of ethical theory, but since you have stated there is no objective right or wrong, I would assume that you do not use this definition.

Since your quote has to do with laws infringing on rights, what you define as a right can't be derived from a legal system.

Is your definition of rights based on social conventions and norms?


[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1323211329' post='2345770']
A desire based code of laws... What if society finds it desirable to round up and gas atheists, "for the good of society" of course? If the government legalizes it, does that make it just? Some people desired cheap labor, so government allowed slavery. Just?
[/quote]
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323217128' post='2345824']
What do you mean by just? Is there an objective just? I don't think so.
[/quote]

That is [i]exactly[/i] his point. He was asking [i]you[/i] whether or not it is just. He is asking you, "if society finds it desirable to round up and gas atheists, "for the good of society"", will you follow along? Will you argue on forums that the government needs to change the laws so that people can exercise their "right" to kill atheists?

If there is no objective right or wrong, then do we blindly follow all societal norms?

Edited December 7, 2011 by brianthephysicist

[stevil]

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1323219921' post='2345862']
Just sayin
[/quote]
Not sure what you are trying to say here.

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1323219921' post='2345862']
I'm a bit confused as to precisely what you believe a right is. Wikipedia defines rights as


Obviously, most phatmassers would follow along the lines of ethical theory, but since you have stated there is no objective right or wrong, I would assume that you do not use this definition.

Since your quote has to do with laws infringing on rights, what you define as a right can't be derived from a legal system.
[/quote]
I am trying to tailor my language so that it can be understandable by Christians. This is a difficult task.
I think the term "rights" is somewhat meaningless unless qualified such as "legal rights". But on its own theists term this as "ethical rights", so what I am saying is that if we are to talk in terms of an "ethical right" I would say that everything is an ethical right, absolutely everything, even murder.
I know this seems somewhat absurd to a theist as murder does not fit into their definition of ethics, but what I am trying to express is that I don't believe there is a starting point of ethics, hence "ethical rights" or simply "rights" are meaningless to me.
But in discussion with theists they keep coming back to rights/ethical rights and suggest that people are bestowed with a set of rights as defined by their interpretation of scripture and that if something falls outside of that, then it is not a right. e.g. Homosexual sex.
I of course do not accept that the scripture interpreted rights are in fact a list of the only rights of actions that people are entitled to do.
There are no rights, we can do any action we desire and which is physically possible.

But when law imposes restrictions on our actions, it then is imposing on the actions that we can perform. Some of these impositions are desired and essential inorder to create a functioning society. In my opinion these are the rules government should impose. Some impositions are not with regards to creating a functioning society, such as anti gay laws, in my opinion the government should not impose and the society members each should be allowed to choose what actions they want to take, be that having gay sex or not having gay sex, it should be a personal choice.
When i am refering to "rights" I am refering to the actions that people are physically able to perform, this is the only possible stance I can take given that I do not believe in an objective right/moral.
I hope this is now clear to you.

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1323219921' post='2345862']
That is [i]exactly[/i] his point. He was asking [i]you[/i] whether or not it is just. [/quote]
My point is that I do not believe in an objective just. I cannot answer "yes" or "no" to the question.

[BigJon16]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323226831' post='2346096']

I am trying to tailor my language so that it can be understandable by Christians. This is a difficult task.
[/quote]
[indent=1][size=3]Do not reprove the arrogant, lest they hate you;[/size][/indent][indent=1][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][size=3]reprove the wise, and they will love you.[/size][/size][/font][/indent]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][size=3]Instruct the wise, and they become still wiser;[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][indent=1][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][size=3]teach the just, and they advance in learning.[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/indent]

[indent=1][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4]The beginning of wisdom is fear of the LORD,[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/indent][indent=1][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][size=3]and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/indent][indent=1][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]--- Proverbs 9:8-10[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/indent]

[indent=1][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Who you callin' stupid? hahahaha [/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/indent]



[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323226831' post='2346096'][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I think the term "rights" is somewhat meaningless unless qualified such as "legal rights". But on its own theists term this as "ethical rights", so what I am saying is that if we are to talk in terms of an "ethical right" I would say that everything is an ethical right, absolutely everything, even murder.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I know this seems somewhat absurd to a theist as murder does not fit into their definition of ethics, but what I am trying to express is that I don't believe there is a starting point of ethics, hence "ethical rights" or simply "rights" are meaningless to me.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But in discussion with theists they keep coming back to rights/ethical rights and suggest that people are bestowed with a set of rights as defined by their interpretation of scripture and that if something falls outside of that, then it is not a right. e.g. Homosexual sex.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I of course do not accept that the scripture interpreted rights are in fact a list of the only rights of actions that people are entitled to do.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are no rights, we can do any action we desire and which is physically possible.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But when law imposes restrictions on our actions, it then is imposing on the actions that we can perform. Some of these impositions are desired and essential inorder to create a functioning society. In my opinion these are the rules government should impose. Some impositions are not with regards to creating a functioning society, such as anti gay laws, in my opinion the government should not impose and the society members each should be allowed to choose what actions they want to take, be that having gay sex or not having gay sex, it should be a personal choice.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When i am refering to "rights" I am refering to the actions that people are physically able to perform, this is the only possible stance I can take given that I do not believe in an objective right/moral.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I hope this is now clear to you.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]


[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]My point is that I do not believe in an objective just. I cannot answer "yes" or "no" to the question.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/quote][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you don't believe in "an objective just", then how do you make any judgments on any law? How do you decide that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? [/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In my opinion the allowance of gay marriage doesn't allow society to function any better than it has been functioning for the past 2000 years. How can the allowance of gay marriage improve society? Better tolerance?[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The gov't cant change peoples prejudices. African Americans have been legally made equal to whites, but we still have a large amount of white, racist Americans. There are laws in place to protect the dignity of the African American, yet we still have racists.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What makes people think that the government allowing gay marriage will change anything?[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=4][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sure, in my state (New York) homosexuals can marry, but as a Catholic I'm still against it. Cuomo could have gotten all the votes in the world, but he still cant change what marriage was created by God to be.[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323216328' post='2345814']
By whose standard do we declare something to be right or wrong?

It would be nice that people are open to discussing differences of opinion, but you don't have to come out of discussion with everyone aligned.
[/quote]
I don't know what you mean by this.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323217128' post='2345824']
What do you mean by just?
Is there an objective just? I don't think so.
[/quote]
So in this case it is just (or at the very least, is not objectively unjust) to keep two same sex individuals from marrying. Am I incorrect?

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323226831' post='2346096']
Not sure what you are trying to say here.


I am trying to tailor my language so that it can be understandable by Christians. This is a difficult task.
I think the term "rights" is somewhat meaningless unless qualified such as "legal rights". But on its own theists term this as "ethical rights", so what I am saying is that if we are to talk in terms of an "ethical right" I would say that everything is an ethical right, absolutely everything, even murder.
I know this seems somewhat absurd to a theist as murder does not fit into their definition of ethics, but what I am trying to express is that I don't believe there is a starting point of ethics, hence "ethical rights" or simply "rights" are meaningless to me.
But in discussion with theists they keep coming back to rights/ethical rights and suggest that people are bestowed with a set of rights as defined by their interpretation of scripture and that if something falls outside of that, then it is not a right. e.g. Homosexual sex.
I of course do not accept that the scripture interpreted rights are in fact a list of the only rights of actions that people are entitled to do.
There are no rights, we can do any action we desire and which is physically possible.

But when law imposes restrictions on our actions, it then is imposing on the actions that we can perform. Some of these impositions are desired and essential inorder to create a functioning society. In my opinion these are the rules government should impose. Some impositions are not with regards to creating a functioning society, such as anti gay laws, in my opinion the government should not impose and the society members each should be allowed to choose what actions they want to take, be that having gay sex or not having gay sex, it should be a personal choice.
When i am refering to "rights" I am refering to the actions that people are physically able to perform, this is the only possible stance I can take given that I do not believe in an objective right/moral.
I hope this is now clear to you.


My point is that I do not believe in an objective just. I cannot answer "yes" or "no" to the question.
[/quote]

Thank you for clarifying what you mean by rights. I agree, sometimes this is a difficult task.

You mentioned imposing restrictions in order to create a functioning society. Now we're onto something. I'll try to explain the flow of logic as best as I understand it.

We start off with the the traditional family unit: a husband, a wife, and children. This family unit serves to propagate society, as it has so done for the past few thousand years. There are certain actions in a society that serve to weaken this unit. Some of them are obvious, like adultery. Some of them are bit less obvious, like pre-marital sex. These, and many others, attack the family unit. They make it more difficult to raise well-adjusted contributing members of society. I'm not saying that a single mother/father or a strained marriage cannot produce such people, I'm just saying that statistically it is more difficult.

You might be wondering how pre-marital sex erodes the family unit. This is a whole new can of worms, that I don't feel like getting into at the moment, but some of the main ideas include ideas dealing with the emotional bond it creates, pregnancy and STD's, fostering dignity and respect, etc. It'd be a bit off topic to try to convince you right here that pre-marital sex is a attack on the family unit, but that is a position we as Catholics hold.

The reason I mentioned all of this, is because it relates to the topic at hand in that the Catholic Church believes that pre-marital sex and same-gender sex attack the family unit because they are both sex outside of marriage. So then the next logical step would be to ask why not let people of the same gender get married? This would mean they could have sex within the confines of marriage so it would be "okay". Well, not really.

The thing about this new type of marriage is that it is not the same as traditional marriage, so we do have to consider whether or not it can serve as a new unit for the propagation of functioning society. In the first, most basic sense, same-sex couples cannot produce children. This type of marriage, cannot propagate society on its own, but right now, there are plenty of children in foster homes that need parents, so many argue that it is a valid family unit and should be explored not as a replacement, but as an option alongside traditional marriage

The main problem with this, is the type of love that two people of the same sex can show is different than the love shown by two people of the opposite sex. I'm not saying that two people of the same sex can't show love, just that it is different. Men and women were created differently. Equal, but different. They love and nurture differently. That is part of what makes marriage so beautiful. The contribution from each is important to a child's emotional and mental health. This is why single parenting doesn't work as well as traditional marriage. Even though the parent shows as much love as they possibly can, it is difficult to give the child the same love that they can receive from a traditional family. In much the same way with same-sex marriage, even though there are now two people, they still cannot offer the extra dimension of love that traditional marriage does.

[Papist]

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1323238025' post='2346300']

Thank you for clarifying what you mean by rights. I agree, sometimes this is a difficult task.

You mentioned imposing restrictions in order to create a functioning society. Now we're onto something. I'll try to explain the flow of logic as best as I understand it.

We start off with the the traditional family unit: a husband, a wife, and children. This family unit serves to propagate society, as it has so done for the past few thousand years. There are certain actions in a society that serve to weaken this unit. Some of them are obvious, like adultery. Some of them are bit less obvious, like pre-marital sex. These, and many others, attack the family unit. They make it more difficult to raise well-adjusted contributing members of society. I'm not saying that a single mother/father or a strained marriage cannot produce such people, I'm just saying that statistically it is more difficult.

You might be wondering how pre-marital sex erodes the family unit. This is a whole new can of worms, that I don't feel like getting into at the moment, but some of the main ideas include ideas dealing with the emotional bond it creates, pregnancy and STD's, fostering dignity and respect, etc. It'd be a bit off topic to try to convince you right here that pre-marital sex is a attack on the family unit, but that is a position we as Catholics hold.

The reason I mentioned all of this, is because it relates to the topic at hand in that the Catholic Church believes that pre-marital sex and same-gender sex attack the family unit because they are both sex outside of marriage. So then the next logical step would be to ask why not let people of the same gender get married? This would mean they could have sex within the confines of marriage so it would be "okay". Well, not really.

The thing about this new type of marriage is that it is not the same as traditional marriage, so we do have to consider whether or not it can serve as a new unit for the propagation of functioning society. In the first, most basic sense, same-sex couples cannot produce children. This type of marriage, cannot propagate society on its own, but right now, there are plenty of children in foster homes that need parents, so many argue that it is a valid family unit and should be explored not as a replacement, but as an option alongside traditional marriage

The main problem with this, is the type of love that two people of the same sex can show is different than the love shown by two people of the opposite sex. I'm not saying that two people of the same sex can't show love, just that it is different. Men and women were created differently. Equal, but different. They love and nurture differently. That is part of what makes marriage so beautiful. The contribution from each is important to a child's emotional and mental health. This is why single parenting doesn't work as well as traditional marriage. Even though the parent shows as much love as they possibly can, it is difficult to give the child the same love that they can receive from a traditional family. In much the same way with same-sex marriage, even though there are now two people, they still cannot offer the extra dimension of love that traditional marriage does.
[/quote]
Well said. Men and women compliment each other in a way same-sex couples can't.

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323218357' post='2345843']
There are religious groups that provide benefit to society but only if they get there way on certain things. It is a type of blackmail. Society ought not to bow down to blackmail.
[/quote]
Blackmail alright, but I believe you have it backwards. I believe in the separation of Church and State, such that the Church needs to be protected from the State.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323207359' post='2345748']
[I am not against incest], but I do think children are not old enough to make certain decisions for themselves, this is currently recognised by government as well and psychologists.
[/quote]

Well, agreed, there!

But I do think there is something interesting about how you present this - since it is currently recognized (by gov't and scientists), it is acceptable. So...if researchers change their mind, then the gov't should be made to change their mind as well? I think this opens the door for people like Alfred Kinsey to determine what the laws are. His research included explorations of the sexuality of young children.

There is something to be said for 'to the best of our knowledge,' but there is also something to be said for, 'this way has worked in the past.'

[Ale.SOLT]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1322983092' post='2344305']
If life long celibacy is what gay people must do, wouldn't they be a good fit for priesthood?
[/quote]

Good question! I will find this out.

[Ale.SOLT]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1322983293' post='2344308']
Uh...why should that matter? I thought homosexuality was okay, acting on that homosexuality wasn't.
[/quote]
Exactly!! Homosexuality is totally fine! On the other hand, doing homosexual acts is what is not okay.

[Ale.SOLT]

[quote name='HopefulBride' timestamp='1323029834' post='2344471']



A very good and Holy priest once said

"great priests would make great husbands and great husbands would make great priests"

First, the call to the priesthood isn't about what else you can't do. It's about a call within your soul and a desire to give your all to the Lord and His flock. Same goes for the call to religious life. You don't choose the priesthood because you have no other choice just like you don't choose religious life because you can't find a man. In order to truly appreciate them both one needs to truly understand and [i]appreciate [/i]the beauty of marriage (i.e. between a man and a woman)
[/quote]

If I could give you brownie points to get to heaven, I would!!
GOOD JOB :D

[Papist]

[quote name='Ale.SOLT' timestamp='1323274230' post='2346499']
Exactly!! Homosexuality is totally fine! On the other hand, doing homosexual acts is what is not okay.
[/quote]
[quote name='Ale.SOLT' timestamp='1323274137' post='2346497']

Good question! I will find this out.
[/quote]
This was already covered.

[stevil]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1323271474' post='2346438']
But I do think there is something interesting about how you present this - since it is currently recognized (by gov't and scientists), it is acceptable.
[/quote]
I didn't say "since", I was merely pointing out that it is recognised by government.
It is interesting to note the deciding factor on when a person is recognised as a child or an adult.
Our government say the turning point is a person's 16th birthday, this does not recognise a biological or mental change, merely a length of time.

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323281511' post='2346591']
I didn't say "since", I was merely pointing out that it is recognised by government.
It is interesting to note the deciding factor on when a person is recognised as a child or an adult.
Our government say the turning point is a person's 16th birthday, this does not recognise a biological or mental change, merely a length of time.
[/quote]
But why is the government the final and true authority? Plus whatever law they lay down would not be objective, right?