Beards and Gay Marriage

[GaryTaylor]

This was difficult to reply because in some I needed to try and get at what was being asked and could of made a mistake.

Here’s the thing, with animals, we are talking basic survival. I don’t see where they have any groups embracing these types of sexual lifestyles we are discussing here. I admit there are some species which can be promiscuous, but we are talking animals. They in fact are hardwired to procreate and survive. No deviations, natural family planning be it in raw forms they procreate.

Here though in comparison we are claiming the higher intellect is the ability to do what you may behind closed doors and with whom-ever and however as a lifestyle which isn’t ordered to procreation and survival. Would you say we and the animals are naturally ordered to procreate and survive? Thus it would be un-naturally ordered to order ourselves to extinction through vanity of intellect and purposely ignore the natural order?

I can’t quantify this, so the higher intellect has the privileged position to pleasure himself in whatever form of intimacy he fashions as the privy of the intellect which doesn’t result in survival or procreation?

The animals still appear smarter with the naturally family planning strictly enforced

 

[orang]

Here’s the thing, with animals, we are talking basic survival. I don’t see where they have any groups embracing these types of sexual lifestyles we are discussing here. I admit there are some species which can be promiscuous, but we are talking animals. They in fact are hardwired to procreate and survive. No deviations, natural family planning be it in raw forms they procreate.

Here though in comparison we are claiming the higher intellect is the ability to do what you may behind closed doors and with whom-ever and however as a lifestyle which isn’t ordered to procreation and survival. Would you say we and the animals are naturally ordered to procreate and survive? Thus it would be un-naturally ordered to order ourselves to extinction through vanity of intellect and purposely ignore the natural order?

I can’t quantify this, so the higher intellect has the privileged position to pleasure himself in whatever form of intimacy he fashions as the privy of the intellect which doesn’t result in survival or procreation?

The animals still appear smarter with the naturally family planning strictly enforced

Okay so I agree and understand.

A way to quantify the position would be to inquire, if this is the expression of the intellect in action, where is the logic or intellectual rationale in what is going on ? So in other words the intellect is being used to justify a notion which has no value. So its trickery in creating a deviation from reason, saying the intellect itself alone is above the reasoning it is responsible for.

Adding more to the intellectual attribute studies from what I understand have been able to demonstrate animals with a greater intelligence such as porpoise and some birds keep to the same mate throughout the life cycle, fish also return for the spawning.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Then we are way off the original topic, are we not? And is it not irrational to criticise arguments aimed at the natural law argument for not countering your new consequentialist argument?

I entered the conversation because someone (you?) claimed that people only have subjective purposes, not an objective purpose. The objective purpose is, in my mind, happiness.

Also, my argument may be consequentialist, but only in an Aristotelian sense. It is not at all a utilitarian argument. I do not think that morality is about maximizing quantitative happiness. I think morality is all about virtue. If you convince me that a truly virtuous person would consider sodomy a viable activity, you’ll convince me that your position is correct.

If you call into question the notion of a virtuous person existing in the first place, you will make me question whether it’s worth talking to you.

I said that rape is wrong for that reason. If you don’t get that, or think that sex with kids is not rape, then !

Sure, there is an additional consequentialist argument against child sex, but so what? Neither argument makes the link between this example and gay marriage (which is what we are supposed to be talking about) or gay sex (which is what most of you seem to be talking about now)

This is where you portray me as something of a utilitarian, which is totally not the case. My objection is not to the anticipated harm in particular cases of child-rape, but to the general rule that such actions tend to seriously harm children, and so such actions should never be taken. Nor is there any conceivable reason that a virtuous person would ever consider such an action, since a virtuous person does not consider sexual pleasure a reason for action – just as a virtuous person does not consider feeling an itch a reason for scratching. Now, there are cases where it is good to scratch, but the anticipated pleasure of scratching is never a good reason to scratch.

Looking back at the conversation, you were claiming that the penis can be used for a variety of sexual purposes, and you used evidence drawn from other parts of the body – that, for instance, a nose can be used for multiple purposes.

But then my question for you is this: Is there anything special about the sexual organs? If not, then why is it OK to tickle a child, but wrong to fondle him or her? If there is something special about the sexual organs, then why should we believe that your analogies to other parts of the body hold?

:bigyikes:

No. Really, no. There is too much wrong with that statement for me to address in this unrelated thread.

So you are suggesting that actions that harm no one at all could be seriously morally wrong?

Gee, I thought that was something only “those crazy Catholics” did. Aren’t fornication and gay sex defended under the claim that “they harm no one”?

And does everything you do have to be an expression of virtue? Was your last bowel movement an expression of virtue?

Of course it was. I am potty trained, after all.

A virtuous person’s every action flows from her virtuous dispositions. So yes, everything is covered under that.

That being said, a loving same sex relationship can be just as much an “expression of virtue” as an opposite sex one.

Assertion. Can you back it up?

If you simply want not to engage in same sex marriage yourself, just don’t. No need to explain yourself even as much as you have here. In the nicest way possible, I am not here to convince you to marry me!

Aw, shucks, I thought you’d never ask!

This dialogue is only really meaningful in as much as ‘you’ (not necessarily ‘you’ personally, I would say ‘one’ but that makes me feel like Prince Charles) want other people who do not share your beliefs not to be able to engage in same sex marriage. Or shave their beards, if I dare bring this back to the OP.

I am not concerned with criticizing or defending gay marriage. I am concerned with criticizing certain arguments for gay marriage, and certain arguments against gay marriage. (If you note in my prior posts, I am certainly not beyond criticizing the arguments of fellow Catholics.)

As for beards, I am terrified lest God smite me if I shave my own.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You have never been depressed, have you?

As mentioned above, pleasure really doesn’t work as a long-term treatment for depression. I’ve tried it, numerous times – just puts me back in the same rut of shame and self-pity.

Love is a much better treatment – and we can freely receive all we want from God Himself, who loves us more than we can possibly imagine.

 

[Protestor]

I entered the conversation because someone (you?) claimed that people only have subjective purposes, not an objective purpose. The objective purpose is, in my mind, happiness.

Do you think you shoot your argument in the foot when you say “The objective purpose is, in my mind”? Normally when people make objective claims they go like “The objective purpose is ________” and do not qualify it. I skipped a few pages so if this was a quote or something, forgive me.

 

[Bahman]

We instinctively do many things, for example kill for no apparent reason but our confused state of mind also. And there are people who are really killers. So if a killer feels to do so from his/her perspective and not yours of course, what do you say to them?

First, we should not take the place of God justice, captivating them or even worst killing them, what would be our difference then. Second, they of course need love and compassion more than anything else.

We shouldn’t blame them for anything?

They should reach to state of mind to blame themselves for what they they. What would be our difference then if we blame them.

What level of morality should we hold the seemingly unmoral to?

Highest level of morality namely don’t consider their actions as unmoral when it comes to them.

 

[Bahman]

As mentioned above, pleasure really doesn’t work as a long-term treatment for depression. I’ve tried it, numerous times – just puts me back in the same rut of shame and self-pity.

Love is a much better treatment – and we can freely receive all we want from God Himself, who loves us more than we can possibly imagine.

Love is of course pleasant.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t think feelings or words would help a person who is depressed, and possibly considering suicide.

Rarely, there are days when I get out of bed only because I am willed by God to do so, and to get on with my day. I do not think I have depression, and I’m not saying that’s going to be enough all the time. Sometimes medications, as depression is an illness, may be necessary to help a person think straight.

But pleasure will not solve any problem in the long run, not even depression. It lasts for a while, makes us happy. And then we are empty again, and need more. And while medication will treat a chemical imbalance, it will not give a person a reason to live. They may not want to kill themselves. But I’m not sure life will be much more desirable.

For life to be better than death, life has to have meaning. It has to have something concrete to which one can turn to, even in his mind, and work towards. Something that one can hold on to even when everything else falls apart. (That is why, for example, part of nursing care is to remind the dying of things like that - family, friends, God, and the like.)

Feeling of course the issue. The problem is that we have no control on our feeling most of the time. They go up and down depending on circumstances some we know and some we don’t know but regardless, this movement is necessary as they define state of life.

I have been highly depressed for a long time and now I am out of it. To me any state of mind has an advantage which enhances maturity including depression as any state of mind is necessary otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Depression is opposite of enthusiasm, the first increases durability and the second increases maneuverability in life.

 

[GaryTaylor]

First, we should not take the place of God justice, captivating them or even worst killing them, what would be our difference then. Second, they of course need love and compassion more than anything else…

They believe it is “love and compassion” and justice is a mere mitigation when survival of the fittest gets a bit too fit at surviving

They should reach to state of mind to blame themselves for what they they. What would be our difference then if we blame them…

They couldn’t do this on their own, their own thinking placed them in the situation. And we agree we should have tolerance for all, amen, but speaking on a global level there is little tolerance for Christians? Everyone should be in agreement on this tolerance, or they just don’t know better? How do we respond, more love? I’ll love you more than you hate me?

Highest level of morality namely don’t consider their actions as unmoral when it comes to them.

Highest morality, Gods justice? Why do we even call this morality? Isn’t morality virtuous conduct? What’s the virtue here, to have the final say with our own wants when there is no need, and the moral law is for our making? What the heck, its the law of the woods., survival of the fittest. If we are talking about something different I don’t see where, the natural law is nothing more than survival of the fittest. But natural family planning even for the animals is a truth.

How does one reach a state of mind to understand themselves on this run away train? There is no coming out of this when your best thinking put you in it, and confirms the behavior? The statistical percentage who find their way out is what, 1-2-3 percent? And more than likely with a good deal of help.

Seems to me we have social conflict. Why not all admit this since we are social animals no? Seems rather sneaky and dishonest, we should just put our thinking up for what it is in honesty and reach consensus instead of unresolved conflict.

 

[Bahman]

Feelings are neither right nor wrong, its how we process and respond to them which validate.

What does control rationality if it is not the meaning which indeed requires the feeling? The meaning hence the rationality is gone when the feeling is gone.

I may be in road rage and feel like many things, but acting off them is completely different when not rationally thought through.

That is again feeling which helps you to think on different subject matters.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Feeling of course the issue. The problem is that we have no control on our feeling most of the time. They go up and down depending on circumstances some we know and some we don’t know but regardless, this movement is necessary as they define state of life.

I have been highly depressed for a long time and now I am out of it. To me any state of mind has an advantage which enhances maturity including depression as any state of mind is necessary otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Depression is opposite of enthusiasm, the first increases durability and the second increases maneuverability in life.

They don’t have to go up and down as an emotional roller coaster. They may start as high and lows and rather unbalanced, but they don’t need to continue as such. Its a matter of processing, postponing, intentional stress management, and thinking the entire process all the way through to its finality frame by frame and then in regards to all, and then making a conscious rational “choice” to act in the best interest of the greater good. Because at the end of our thinking, be that what it may be, there is everyone else.

Most people do this “normally” without realizing the process, we usually call them the good moral people. But we can learn their “normal” processing, the good news is it can be learned.

 

[Bahman]

They don’t have to go up and down as an emotional roller coaster. They may start as high and lows and rather unbalanced, but they don’t need to continue as such. Its a matter of processing, postponing, intentional stress management, and thinking the entire process all the way through to its finality frame by frame and then in regards to all, and then making a conscious rational “choice” to act in the best interest of the greater good. Because at the end of our thinking, be that what it may be, there is everyone else.

Most people do this “normally” without realizing the process, we usually call them the good moral people. But we can learn their “normal” processing, the good news is it can be learned.

I agree with a part of what you said but don’t you think that stress or suffering are necessary as far as we can control them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What does control rationality if it is not the meaning which indeed requires the feeling? The meaning hence the rationality is gone when the feeling is gone…

Well that’s the question, what is the meaning completely understood of the feeling. For example an alcoholic may drive by a package store and may have strong feelings which conclude in having a drink. But what are they really feeling? Course depression itself may indeed be clinical, whats the best way to know? Through observation, confrontation and honest dialogue? One may be bi-polar or one of several other medical issues involving anxiety and depression. They also may just be an emotional ball of confusion which can be sorted out. Calming the confusion in a sort of re-directive focusing. Such as mentioned along with prayer, meditation, deep breathing, exercise-cardio vascular and so forth. Connecting to the greater good being the goal which may indeed be finding the self.

That is again feeling which helps you to think on different subject matters.

Your thoughts create your feelings, correctly responding becomes the dilemma. The alcoholic saw the package store then came the feelings.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree with a part of what you said but don’t you think that stress or suffering are necessary as far as we can control them.

Stress takes on a different meaning than suffering it appears. Suffering is part of living as is the normal depression. Correctly viewing both easily becomes confused. If we are all serving the greater good in morality-virtue, then suffering for the greater good may be a welcome reality at some point? If one has to suffer, which indeed we all come to know pain, humility in this world, then there could be no greater unselfish virtue than suffering for the greater good?

 

[Bahman]

Well that’s the question, what is the meaning completely understood of the feeling.

Feeling to me is deeply rooted in our instincts meaning that they have no meaning but they give meaning. In another word they cause meaning but alone they don’t carry any meaning and thats what I meant with “the feeling is the meaning”. Perhaps I should use the feeling causes the meaning to avoid the confusion. Anyway, I am currently contemplating on the subject matter and my word might not be very precise. As an example, think of feeling as fuel, meaning as engine and our thoughts as wheels each are necessary for the right movement.

For example an alcoholic may drive by a package store and may have strong feelings which conclude in having a drink. But what are they really feeling?

Feeling are the initial cause of life movement. Lets consider your example of alcoholic person. The feeling push the person toward drinking, where as his/her thoughts prohibit him from drinking. Which one wins we don’t know but regardless the feeling is crucial thing in this confrontation which is very necessary aspect of life especially when it comes to meaning.

Your thoughts create your feelings, correctly responding becomes the dilemma. The alcoholic saw the package store then came the feelings.

Our thoughts cannot create our feeling but they are able to give them a direction.

 

[Major_Tom]

Exactly.

So you wouldn’t oppose someone trying to stop a campaign that says, “We want to have the right to call this a circle!” right?

I would heartily support it.

Do you know who defined a circle? And where you can read about this definition?

I’d guess the early Greeks.

 

[Major_Tom]

My example was about Bulimia.

And I would call it disordered.

That’s why it’s called an…

Eating…

Disorder.

Fitting, eh?

It’s an activity that thwarts the natural…ahem…ORDER…of the process of eating.

I had trouble understanding your bulimia example, so I tried another food example. Fair enough. Stick with bulimia. Bulimia seems best understood as a series of actions. If I didn’t eat much last Tuesday, and I don’t like my body, I’m not bulimic. I’m only considered disordered if I perform a series of those actions, over a course of time. Any one individual eating action would not be considered disordered. Would you agree?

So, if I occasionally overeat…. Or occasionally undereat… I am still ordered properly when it comes to food (and my digestive system). Would you agree?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Do you think you shoot your argument in the foot when you say “The objective purpose is, in my mind”? Normally when people make objective claims they go like “The objective purpose is ________” and do not qualify it. I skipped a few pages so if this was a quote or something, forgive me.

No, of course not. An opinion is necessarily an opinion THAT something is true. That’s the meaning of “opinion”.

If I say, “I think that it is raining outside”, this is stating that it is your opinion that it is in fact raining outside. Just saying “it is raining outside” is no less an opinion, though perhaps it sounds more confident.

All asserted propositions are opinions. Some opinions are true and some are false. There is no such thing as something being “just” an opinion – it is either a true opinion or a false opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Love is of course pleasant.

So is torturing people, so I hear.

But moreover, the choiceworthiness of love does not come from its pleasantness. And you can only be loved by taking risks, by making yourself vulnerable – which isn’t pleasant.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Feeling to me is deeply rooted in our instincts meaning that they have no meaning but they give meaning. In another word they cause meaning but alone they don’t carry any meaning and thats what I meant with “the feeling is the meaning”. Perhaps I should use the feeling causes the meaning to avoid the confusion. Anyway, I am currently contemplating on the subject matter and my word might not be very precise. As an example, think of feeling as fuel, meaning as engine and our thoughts as wheels each are necessary for the right movement…

That’s true too but this the law written in the heart, that doesn’t go anywhere, you can throw a blanket over it so to speak and rationalize and excuse away, but you can’t run away from it

Feeling are the initial cause of life movement. Lets consider your example of alcoholic person. The feeling push the person toward drinking, where as his/her thoughts prohibit him from drinking. Which one wins we don’t know but regardless the feeling is crucial thing in this confrontation which is very necessary aspect of life especially when it comes to meaning…

Which one wins over is dependent on the processing, identifying what you feel and why.

Our thoughts cannot create our feeling but they are able to give them a direction.

It becomes thought- imagination thus created feelings. So the guy/girl goes by the package-store and bang, the imagination is off and running, they deserve it, they are thirsty, they imagine the cold beer and opening of the bottle, and so forth. They create an acceptable illusion. And it has a meaning as you say. Its also a process of rational reasoning and seeing it through what the feelings are and why.

Which person is likely to pull over and act off their feeling? The one who created the beer commercial in their mind?