Beards and Gay Marriage

[Protestor]

This whole schema assumes that we have access to facts. But the only way we have access to facts is through beliefs – i.e. opinions. Even sensory “knowledge” is just a set of beliefs that we believe are really true. I think we often genuinely know things when our beliefs are true, but ALL of our knowledge is subjective, insofar as facts do not ever directly impose themselves objectively upon our consciousness.

Sure, like I think I said before if you are making a deeper epistemological claim that is fine with me, but where I see us differing is in is at least in our definition of opinion. I have offered a more specific definition and you are using a more general one. I would like to see the papers or books of these “professionals” you are espousing. Specifically the ones to do with opinions, and if they exist how opinions and beliefs are the same thing. I actually am a philosophy undergrad, but I am getting it on the side.So I am somewhat interested in what you are saying.

I am espousing the mainstream views among professional philosophers. Perhaps they are all wrong, and you are right.

Well since the way I have seen it is that professional philosophers disagree all the time.By professional philosopher I assume the you mean professors.

(1) “H2O is water” is not a tautology. A necessary truth, yes, but not a tautology.
(2) And yes, you are asserting your opinion. You would be asserting an opinion even if you said “1+1=2”. But not a “mere” opinion.

My bad on this one. Two of the profs I had used the unmarried men are bachelors in different ways and I confused them. On the mathematical side I would say it was from pure reasoning and not an opinion but whatever.

I you sure about Plato I thought that he classified a priori as objective knowledge and a posteriori as subjective knowledge. I have not learned about him in so long. I still think you are defining opinion as “any premise or conclusion that is held by an individual”, and although I think that definition has it’s uses I do not use it in this context.

If you disagree with me still fine. It really has no bearing on the fact that you still produced a subjective belief and not an objective belief. I was saying that your statement lacked force because you added a weakening clause of “I think” at least by my definition of opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sure, like I think I said before if you are making a deeper epistemological claim that is fine with me, but where I see us differing is in is at least in our definition of opinion. I have offered a more specific definition and you are using a more general one. I would like to see the papers or books of these “professionals” you are espousing. Specifically the ones to do with opinions, and if they exist how opinions and beliefs are the same thing. I actually am a philosophy undergrad, but I am getting it on the side.So I am somewhat interested in what you are saying.

Consult any introductory book on contemporary epistemology, and you’ll see that university philosophers use the words “belief” and “opinion” interchangeably. (Moreover, I don’t know how one could be said to “know” something if it isn’t even their opinion.)

I agree that we could develop a consistent special vocabulary by which “opinion” means “a view that is not subject to scientific verification”, which would exclude scientific statements (true or false) from being opinions. But I don’t see what the use of that special vocabulary is.

In my experience, when someone denigrates another person’s view by saying it is “just an opinion”, that person really means something like “there is no straightforward empirical evidence for your view.” But no empirical evidence does not imply no evidence, so the phrase “that’s just your opinion” is just a way of *irrationally *dismissing the other person’s viewpoint.

Well since the way I have seen it is that professional philosophers disagree all the time.By professional philosopher I assume the you mean professors.

Actually, they spend much more of their time agreeing (“hive mind”). If they disagreed more, philosophy would be much more productive.

I you sure about Plato I thought that he classified a priori as objective knowledge and a posteriori as subjective knowledge. I have not learned about him in so long. I still think you are defining opinion as “any premise or conclusion that is held by an individual”, and although I think that definition has it’s uses I do not use it in this context.

I’m quite sure about Plato; I study Plato for a living. The classifications “a priori” and “a posteriori” don’t map onto Plato well, since Plato arguably thought even knowledge of the Forms was from experience, and thus a posteriori. If you were to force the category of “subjective knowledge” into Plato’s works, it would turn out to be identical to “opinion”.

If you disagree with me still fine. It really has no bearing on the fact that you still produced a subjective belief and not an objective belief. I was saying that your statement lacked force because you added a weakening clause of “I think” at least by my definition of opinion.

I’m not clear on what you mean by an “objective belief”. Every belief objectively exists. And every belief is about reality, reality being something objective. But every belief is mediated by a subject, and thus subjective.

As far as writing style goes, it is often better to leave out “I think that” clauses, and maybe it would have been a better choice in the original sentence I wrote to leave it out. But all we do on this forum is air opinions – no one can elevate his opinion to a “known fact” by calling it so.

 

[DrTaffy]

Why would they want to play another game and call it baseball?

Why do americans insist on calling the ground floor the ‘first floor’, or what is blatantly a crisp a ‘chip’? Or indeed, insist on calling a distorted version of rugby ‘football’?

Why do modern christians try to deny that all sorts of things that have traditionally been referred to as ‘marriage’ in many civilisations are in fact just that, even if they are marriages of which you lot disapprove and which you want to force other religions to not be able to celebrate?

After all, did not many christians object to ‘civil unions’ simply because it was obvious to them that these were indeed same sex marriages?

DrTaffy;12003824:

For example, given that one organ, such as genitals, can serve more than one purpose, how

do you conclude that each and every use of those organs must serve that particular purpose?

I don’t accept your given.

Really?

You deny that the penis can be used for urination or procreation? Or that the mouth can be used to eat, drink, breathe, speak, taste, hold items, bite things, smile, kiss and so on?

Illuminating.

 

[Stephen168]

Why do americans insist on calling the ground floor the ‘first floor’, or what is blatantly a crisp a ‘chip’? Or indeed, insist on calling a distorted version of rugby ‘football’?

Why do modern christians try to deny that all sorts of things that have traditionally been referred to as ‘marriage’ in many civilisations are in fact just that, even if they are marriages of which you lot disapprove and which you want to force other religions to not be able to celebrate?

After all, did not many christians object to ‘civil unions’ simply because it was obvious to them that these were indeed same sex marriages?

Why do you answer questions with questions? Is it because you don’t have an answer?

Really?

Yes

 

[DrTaffy]

Catholics believe the “marital act” is reserved for husband and wife. The marital act is a conjugal union between man and woman; this union occurs even when children don’t result from the union or are not possible.

Again, merely repeating the assertion does nothing to explain or justify it.

If you want to force the consequences of this belief on others, such as by preventing society from recognising same sex marriages, you need to provide objective (ergo secular) justification. Or you establish the principal that any personal subjective beliefs can morally be forced on other religions, a principal that will probably come back to haunt you if Catholicism continues to shrink.

Because we don’t separate sex from marriage, but perhaps you do.

Emphasis added.

And I believe you are wrong there. For example, do you deny that Joseph and Mary were validly married? Or do you deny the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Have you, for that matter, asked a priest (or otherwise researched) whether or not a non consummated marriage is valid in the eyes of the church?

I’m assuming, then, that you would support any sexual relationship as long as it is consensual?

‘Assuming’ is right, and assuming without evidence. I would not oppose any consensual sexual relationship on the grounds that it is not consensual, but did that really need to be pointed out to you?

Can you offer a definition of marriage that we, as a society (any society), should value as a marital norm?

Your problem, I think, is that you want the definition of marriage in itself to rule out all those marriages of which you disapprove. I can only assume that this is down to an unwillingness to defend your objection to those forms of marriage on any basis other than banging your fist on the table and repeating your definition of marriage.

I can, and have, proposed a general definition of marriage that would cover all the meanings of the term in different societies, but that intrinsically does not rule out (for example) incestuous, polygamous, forced, underage or same-sex marriages, as all of those have been current in various civilisations throughout the ages.

IIRC it was something like “two or more people coming together to form a new family unit” - and I include the “or more” only to cover those who seem to think polygamy is one marriage of more than two people, rather than one person involved in more than one marriage simultaneously.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Again, merely repeating the assertion does nothing to explain or justify it.

If you want to force the consequences of this belief on others, such as by preventing society from recognising same sex marriages, you need to provide objective (ergo secular) justification. Or you establish the principal that any personal subjective beliefs can morally be forced on other religions, a principal that will probably come back to haunt you if Catholicism continues to shrink.

Emphasis added.

And I believe you are wrong there. For example, do you deny that Joseph and Mary were validly married? Or do you deny the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Have you, for that matter, asked a priest (or otherwise researched) whether or not a non consummated marriage is valid in the eyes of the church?

‘Assuming’ is right, and assuming without evidence. I would not oppose any consensual sexual relationship on the grounds that it is not consensual, but did that really need to be pointed out to you?

Your problem, I think, is that you want the definition of marriage in itself to rule out all those marriages of which you disapprove. I can only assume that this is down to an unwillingness to defend your objection to those forms of marriage on any basis other than banging your fist on the table and repeating your definition of marriage.

I can, and have, proposed a general definition of marriage that would cover all the meanings of the term in different societies, but that intrinsically does not rule out (for example) incestuous, polygamous, forced, underage or same-sex marriages, as all of those have been current in various civilisations throughout the ages.

IIRC it was something like “two or more people coming together to form a new family unit” - and I include the “or more” only to cover those who seem to think polygamy is one marriage of more than two people, rather than one person involved in more than one marriage simultaneously.

A marriage can only be between a man and a woman because this is the only union capable of producing life naturally. If a man and a woman are sterile, this is due to a design flaw, not the natural design of their bodies. The marital act is still ordered towards the creation of new life and may create new life according to the Will of God. (God cannot create life from a same-sex union because to do so would be for Him to go against natural law; in other words, to will the absence of Himself.)

If a marriage is not consummated, that does not render the marriage invalid. Dissoluble, yes, but not invalid. (This does not mean that such a marriage could not be found invalid for other reasons, but nonconsummation is not grounds, in and of itself, for invalidity.) Some couples do choose, under spiritual direction, to have a “Josephite” marriage (i.e. a marriage which is never consummated) but this is usually only to be done under the guidance of a spiritual director. Normally, the couple are perpetually indebted to each other in terms of the marital act, because their bodies belong to each other. This does NOT mean that one has the right to force the other to engage in the marital act. Rather, it means that they must not withhold the marital act from each other without a valid reason.

I realize that this will mean that gay people cannot marry. Undoubtedly, this is a sacrifice. However, it must be said that there is also sacrifice inherent within marriage, within religious life, and within consecrated life. It’s just that the sacrifices within each vocation are different. There are also heterosexual people who are not called to marriage, but called to single life - in fact, I know a few. I fail to see how requiring a person with same-sex attraction to remain celibate constitutes an “unfair burden” on that person - especially because the same is required of ANY person who is not married or who cannot be married. (Marriage is not just prohibited between people of the same-sex. Those who cannot consent to marriage, those whose first marriage has been found to be valid by a tribunal, and those with pre-existing and perpetual inability to have intercourse cannot marry either.)

 

[DrTaffy]

Why do you answer questions with questions?

Why, do you think it is wrong to answer questions with questions?

If so, why did you just do so?

Ok, the large print version: other people and other cultures have different definitions to you.

Indeed, in a very real sense it is the Christians who have been trying to impose their narrow definition of marriage on all other cultures ever since the times of Theodosius and Constantine.

Yes

So, which is the only function you admit to for the penis? And for the mouth?

 

[DrTaffy]

I am not a bully, so I’m not going to shame you any further into conceding that you made a claim about the Bible that simply ain’t there.

Just know this, DrTaffy: the Bible NEVER states that Mary and Joseph never had marital relations.

And I NEVER claimed that it did.

Now since you have threatened me with moderatorial action for allegedly misrepresenting your view, right back at you. You say above that you will cease misrepresenting me on this issue, then go right ahead and immediately do so again.

Think about this very carefully, DrTaffy. You are saying that there is no significant physical harm from storing lithium batteries in your stomach in order to be able to retrieve them conveniently.

No, I did not.

Again, you misrepresent me.

What I said was that if you could store and retrieve batteries in such a manner without harm to either you or the batteries, then that would be useful. By the definition of ‘useful’.

You are the one who claimed that that was in fact possible.

And then you would have earned the label of being DISORDERED.

Now you are crossing the line into personal abuse. :tsktsk:

 

[Stephen168]

Why would they want to play another game and call it baseball?

Ok, the large print version: other people and other cultures have different definitions to you.

 

[DrTaffy]

Its relevance has to do with an equal exchange: you claimed that I was using jargon to obscure rather than elucidate.

I make that claim to you.

It was just easier to say “Quid pro quo”.

So like I said, you don’t understand the meaning of ‘quid pro quo’, or do not want to admit to misusing it.

Oh, and no surprise that you cannot back up your assertion about my knowledge of Latin.

Given the natural law, and the fact that you are subject to it, even as a superhero (have you seen how messed up their lives are?) you wouldn’t be happy utilizing your powers.

And further, no surprise that you are making unjustified assumptions about how I would use superpowers. Believe me, spandex would not play a role.

Also, you do nothing to address the illustration that being ‘anomalous’ does not mean that something is either immoral or useless.

 

[DrTaffy]

Similarly, what we say is: it’s not a marriage because it has the same gender. And marriages don’t have same genders.

Exactly - all you can do is bang your fist on the table and demand that everyone use your definition. Ignoring, in the process, the fact that historically the word has applied to many other arrangements.

Yeah.

DrTaffy? How is it ruining your game?

It is not. Homosexuals don’t turn up and heckle heterosexual marriages.

It is the religious right who are not only heckling homosexual marriages but trying to bully the rest of society into flatly banning same sex marriage.

Luckily you lot are losing, but in the process you are doing a lot of damage, both to your own religion (your problem) and to the same sex couples.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Indeed, in a very real sense it is the Christians who have been trying to impose their narrow definition of marriage on all other cultures ever since the times of Theodosius and Constantine.

Indeed in time they came along, what was imposed prior?

"Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. "

What narrow views where they imposing?

Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free.

Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off-limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.

Course 12 and over so the innocent children were off limits, at least in this region of the known world. Not all though.

Same-sex relations among women are less documented.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

And the Romans were famous for equal rights. Some were just slightly more equal than others.

Yes the history lesson is also important here. Least we forget where we came from.

 

[orang]

There is nothing man can do about the nature of symmetry , organization and chaos in the world in which he exists.

Galaxies and systems exist because they are organized as units and give a realization and distinguishing of chaos vrs organization.

The family unit is an existence which is away from chaos , and at the same time a part of the whole.

The only way the whole of the species can be something other then chaotic is if the parts are not in a state of chaos.

This all concerns the fundamental values in the existing world which man must exist and survive.

So there needs to be some recognition for values in order to be a surviving species in this world , and there is nothing man can do about it, because man is of, this world, not another world which may seem attractive or fitting from an individual perspective.

understandings need to be something more then individualized in order to suggest any value in broad sweeping perspectives.

 

[stewstew03]

Again, merely repeating the assertion does nothing to explain or justify it.
…

I made a few assertions, and I’m not sure which one you’re having trouble with:

1. Catholics believe the “marital act” is reserved for husband and wife;
2. The marital act is a conjugal union between man and woman;
3. The conjugal union occurs even when children don’t result from the union or are not possible.

Help me out?

If you want to force the consequences of this belief on others, such as by preventing society from recognising same sex marriages, you need to provide objective (ergo secular) justification.
…

The secular justification for opposing same-sex marriage – or, rather, the justification that our public policies should not revise the definition of marriage – is that there is a creative or generative aspect of the conjugal union, and it makes sense to stabilize that relationship.

…Or you establish the principal that any personal subjective beliefs can morally be forced on other religions, a principal that will probably come back to haunt you if Catholicism continues to shrink.

Actually, I have no idea what you mean here.

And I believe you are wrong there.

Catholics teach sex can and should occur outside of marriage?

For example, do you deny that Joseph and Mary were validly married?

No.

Or do you deny the perpetual virginity of Mary?

No.

Have you, for that matter, asked a priest (or otherwise researched) whether or not a non consummated marriage is valid in the eyes of the church?

No; but to be fair, it’s completely irrelevant.

Your problem, I think, is that you want the definition of marriage in itself to rule out all those marriages of which you disapprove.

You come across as very judgmental, DrTaffy, which is unfortunate because it seems you might be capable of engaging in a reasonable discussion. Aside from that, of course I think marriage should have a narrow definition – between one man and one woman – because I believe it makes the most sense from a public policy perspective.

I can only assume that this is down to an unwillingness to defend your objection to those forms of marriage on any basis other than banging your fist on the table and repeating your definition of marriage.

I think the only person getting upset here and banging on tables is you, DrTaffy. I’m perfectly willing to defend my objection to other forms of marriage. Otherwise, why would I be wasting time on CAF?

I can, and have, proposed a general definition of marriage that would cover all the meanings of the term in different societies, but that intrinsically does not rule out (for example) incestuous, polygamous, forced, underage or same-sex marriages, as all of those have been current in various civilisations throughout the ages.

IIRC it was something like “two or more people coming together to form a new family unit” - and I include the “or more” only to cover those who seem to think polygamy is one marriage of more than two people, rather than one person involved in more than one marriage simultaneously.

Most proponents of gay marriage (that I’ve encountered) deny that SSM laws will open the door to other forms of marriage – incestuous, polygamous, etc. – so I appreciate your honesty. Your definition describes all sorts of relationships. By your definition, my close companionship with with my friends from high school – we have a pretty tight knit crew – should be recognized by the state as a marriage. Your view seeks to destabilize families, communities, and society in general. There is absolutely no reason – from a secular, public policy perspective – to force your view upon society and ask the state to redefine marriage for the benefit of a small portion of the population.

 

[DrTaffy]

I’m going to both trim and rearrange your post to try to clarify why I think we are not communicating. No misrepresentation intended:

You don’t seem to be hearing me.

I’ve said a couple of times that I am not at all clear what the context of your claims might be. What, in other words, we are actually discussing since it is apparently not the natural law of marriage and beards.

For example, I explicitly asked whether you were just talking about whether you personally would go into a same sex marriage, or if you were arguing against anyone being allowed to do so.

So given this next bit (taken from the end of your post):

I wonder why you can’t just deal with my objection to gay sex as you would deal with a Jew’s objection to pork? I am not imposing my view on anyone, and I am not claiming that gay people can’t truly and authentically love each other. What exactly do you see me doing that is so terribly objectionable?

So, if I understand correctly, you are not arguing against gay marriage being legally recognised? In which case, sure. You don’t need to have explained even as much as you have done. Bippity boppity boo, job done.

Do I also understand that you are not saying that same sex marriages cannot be virtuous? Yet you clearly challenged my assertion that “a loving same sex relationship can be just as much an “expression of virtue” as an opposite sex one”?

You have said that the genitals are not special in any moral way. It would seem that your position implies, however, that abuse would occur just as often by a fondling of the fingernails as a fondling of the genitals. But we observe exactly the opposite. You are right that, sometimes, abuse occurs by contact with parts of the body that are not intrinsically sexual. But this is the exception, not the rule. Usually abuse occurs through contact (tactile or visual) with the genitals, or through words about the genitals.

I don’t think I agree. Fondling of thighs, breasts, buttocks, belly, shoving the tongue into the mouth and so on are all examples of sexual abuse. Or, as you say, just words can be abuse.

Do you actually have figures on what proportion of child sexual abuse cases involve genital contact? I was under the impression that it was relatively few, but don’t have easy access to a library for the next week or so.

What all these have in common are the effect on the brain. Which is famously the most important sexual organ.

Here you are admitting my point, that the genitalia and the mind have a more intimate connection than the mind’s connection with other parts of the body.

Imagine going without air , food, water or sex for as long as possible. Which ones would you be able to avoid the longest? This illustrates I think that other organs have at least as strong an influence on the mind as the genitals. Stimulating other erogenous zones can be just as effective as going straight for the genitalia, and I personally find them more erotic both to look at and touch.

The power of sex to (for example) mess us up for life if abused is not down to what happens in the crotch during abuse, but what happens in your head. How it plugs into the sex drive, not the mechanics or biochemistry of the genitals.

If I sank electrodes into the right areas of your brain, so as to stimulate arousal and orgasm, I could bypass the genitals entirely and achieve all the same effects. Sadly lab supervisors are terribly narrow minded about this sort of experiment.

An excellent action is an action that tends to contribute to goodness in the world: to happiness, to beauty, and to other virtue. (This last point is circular, but not viciously so – it’s circular in the same way that a recursive function is circular.)

It is viciously circular in that I am still left with no clear idea of how you decide that something is or is not ‘virtuous’.

 

[orang]

For the direct question noticed , objectively speaking, Can a same sex marriage be virtuous, if it could be defined exactly what is understood marriage, I think its possible to give an answer but relative to the English language and given definition of words, all words used and their definitions including the word virtue. And exact definition of words used in any explaining including the word’s morality, mating and so on.So finding would be relative to the definition of words. Many of these things are word definition confusions and words just get used in order to imply a general attribute and what is understood.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is a record of same-sex relations in many civilizations. There is NO record of same-sex marriage being accepted in any civilization anywhere at any time. The notion that Christianity is forcing its agenda on the world is laughably absurd. The world had already forced the heterosexual marriage agenda on itself thousands of years before recorded history, never mind Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

 

[stewstew03]

…
Indeed, in a very real sense it is the Christians who have been trying to impose their narrow definition of marriage on all other cultures ever since the times of Theodosius and Constantine.
…

Are you familiar with Japan?

Are you familiar with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle…?

How about Plutarch who said that marriage is a special relationship because of the act of coitus? This despite living in a “gay friendly” culture.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If you want to force the consequences of this belief on others, such as by preventing society from recognising same sex marriages, you need to provide objective (ergo secular) justification.

Resoundingly false. Your statement assumes, without proving, that knowledge derived from religion is not objective – that is, is not true. What *possible *justification could you have for such a sweeping claim?

If you want to advance a Rawslian argument that the state should not impose a positive view of moral values upon its citizens, please do so. But neither the United States, nor the UK, nor any other country I know of, is founded on Rawlsian assumptions. If most citizens thought that the rule that we not engage in cannibalism was a religious imposition, it would nevertheless be justified for us to ban cannibalism – because cannibalism is objectively wrong.

Don’t assume that we all are convinced by your narrow view of public reason in a secular society.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So for example in comparison with virtue. Somehow in our minds we might even believe this resides somehow in the realm of virtue…

Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free.

Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off-limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.

Course 12 and over so the innocent children were off limits, at least in this region of the known world. Not all though.

Rather self serving, but what the heck, to the strongest he defines virtue. Feeding others to the lions was applauded aside from a strong message. And the entertainers often played a real role in enactment of human drama.

That’s one model of morality, I don’t know that I would claim smarter than the animals here, certainly a variation though. Similar to Flamingos except for the excluding members of the species from normal protection and its hazards, and for entertainment etc.

What the heck we’ll just call this logical morality of reason. Example A.

Well when this gets boring there’s no telling how this escalates, for example choking the slaves while entertaining a variety of different sex positions may be next. For the heck of it. It if wasn’t already, the intrinsic motivation of variation is in full effect here make no mistake. I know you thought this was being responsible.

Yes interesting journey into the darkness of the mind. About here you may even come to believe in supernatural evil, course we don’t want to scare anyone.

So what do we say about self control and the line drawing game on this virtuous path.

Example A. Responsible love and concern variation A- Flamingo-man with a twist.