Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

So what do you call something that has rules where you get a pass if you obey them and you don’t if you break them?

It’s called “In the beginning it was not so.”

God set it up the way I described

Nope.

God set it up differently.

And then we failed.

and it certainly sounds testing to me to have to obey them. If it wasn’t a test, then there’d be no failures. But as you said, we’re all failing…

We fail because we don’t measure up to the standard.

The standard was what God intended.

There certainly can be failures without tests.

In fact, I bet if I did a search for all the times you used “fail” in the CAFs there’d be quite a few times where it wasn’t used in the context of a test.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So what do you call something that has rules where you get a pass if you obey them and you don’t if you break them?

God set it up the way I described and it certainly sounds testing to me to have to obey them. If it wasn’t a test, then there’d be no failures. But as you said, we’re all failing…

You are assuming that pleasure (and pain?) have a one to one correspondence to “take action” and “avoid at all costs.” Your perspective, then, is that human beings are merely sentient creatures and nothing more.

Let’s assume for a minute that humans are not merely sentient, but rational and moral beings. Apparently, there is a conflict between acting heroically in a moral crisis and your perspective that one should always do what is pleasing and avoid pain. Heroic moral actions, then, are strictly to be avoided because generally they result in pain, which, it would appear, is what makes them heroic in the first place.

Therefore, God blundered when he made human beings morally responsible, since you claim that humans are not more than sentient and are inherently incapable of postponing pleasure when moral responsibility raises its (for you?) ugly head. God shouldn’t have such high expectations of humanity, according to your view. Is that correct?

It wouldn’t seem that God is testing, but rather that he has higher expectations of us than we have for ourselves. Your view appears to be that rather than expect responsible judgements and self-discipline, God by making humans sentient ought to have merely settled on the best that humans can do is pleasure themselves. Your notion of God seems to be a liberal democrat in the sky whose highest goal for humanity is narcissistic self-absorption.

 

[Bradski]

In fact, I bet if I did a search for all the times you used “fail” in the CAFs there’d be quite a few times where it wasn’t used in the context of a test.

It’s a test of your faith. It’s a test of your commitment to your religious beliefs. It’s a test to see if you can overcome your natural instincts and obey (as far as you are concerned) a higher calling. If you can, you’re in the good books. If you can’t, you fail.

This is the problem as most Catholics see it. Being Gay is something to overcome. They must Pass The Test. ‘Look at us’ you say, we are trying to pass it (but failing). So you must try too!’

‘Must’? No, PR. More like ‘should’ if you feel strongly enough about it. And it they don’t see it as a test - and the rest of us mere mortals do not, then it signals the end of the discussion. You can feel free to call it what you will and struggle as best you see fit to obey your own rules.

 

[Bradski]

You are assuming that pleasure (and pain?) have a one to one correspondence to “take action” and “avoid at all costs.” Your perspective, then, is that human beings are merely sentient creatures and nothing more.

We can overcome our more basic urges. And you don"t need a religion to aim for that. But you’re missing the point. There is nothing wrong with consensual copulation. And you don’t need to be the married, you don’t need to be the same sex and the coupling does not need to be Ordered Towards Procreation!

Therefore, God blundered when he made human beings morally responsible, since you claim that humans are not more than sentient and are inherently incapable of postponing pleasure when moral responsibility raises its (for you?) ugly head. God shouldn’t have such high expectations of humanity, according to your view. Is that correct?

Well, didn’t PR admit that we have all, are all, failing? If there was a Plan, it doesn’t seem to working.

Your notion of God seems to be a liberal democrat in the sky whose highest goal for humanity is narcissistic self-absorption.

Sounds like someone who’d get my vote.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a test of your faith. It’s a test of your commitment to your religious beliefs. It’s a test to see if you can overcome your natural instincts and obey (as far as you are concerned) a higher calling. If you can, you’re in the good books. If you can’t, you fail.

Well, only in the same way that marital fidelity is a test of your commitment. It’s a test to see if you can overcome your natural instincts and obey (as far as your wife is concerned) a higher calling.

If you can, you’re in the good bed.
If you can’t, you sleep on the couch.
Or worse, out in the streets if she’s the no-nonsense, unforgiving type.

After all, your position is that you men simply cannot–CANNOT–keep it zipped up and in control.

You are being tested every day to remain faithful.

Or, you can look at it from the Catholic paradigm and see that marital fidelity is no more a test than sexual continence is a test.

The Catholic POV is that marital fidelity is what we were…here it comes…

wait for it…
wait for it…

ordered towards.

This is the problem as most Catholics see it. Being Gay is something to overcome.

Yes.

They must Pass The Test. ‘Look at us’ you say, we are trying to pass it (but failing). So you must try too!’

Sure.

Unless you want everyone in society to go around pulling their pants down and and getting busy every time their itch needs to be scratched?

 

[PRmerger]

‘Must’? No, PR. More like ‘should’ if you feel strongly enough about it. And it they don’t see it as a test - and the rest of us mere mortals do not, then it signals the end of the discussion. You can feel free to call it what you will and struggle as best you see fit to obey your own rules.

I don’t understand this. Could you re-phrase?

 

[PRmerger]

We can overcome our more basic urges. And you don"t need a religion to aim for that. But you’re missing the point. There is nothing wrong with consensual copulation.

Well, that would include adultery, wouldn’t it? Because 2 people who are fornicating have to sneak away and lie about it–so that would indicate it’s consensual.

Well, didn’t PR admit that we have all, are all, failing?

I think that’s quite evident from looking at society–don’t you?*

All we have to do is watch one reality tv show to know, “Hmmm…this isn’t how we’re supposed to be. I’m pretty sure about that!”

If there was a Plan, it doesn’t seem to working

That’s why God sent the Redeemer.

*I am talking about the bigger picture here, instead of simply gay sex (which clearly wasn’t part of the Plan since the parts don’t even go together.) I am talking about all of us with our failings, in all the myriad ways we as human persons are not who we should be.

 

[Bradski]

Well, only in the same way that marital fidelity is a test of your commitment. It’s a test to see if you can overcome your natural instincts and obey (as far as your wife is concerned) a higher calling.

Yeah, in exactly the same way. As in it’s a test. Just as gay people have to pass it (as far as you’re concerned). And as you answered:

Sure.

Unless you want everyone in society to go around pulling their pants down and and getting busy every time their itch needs to be scratched?

Don’t confuse me pointing out that it’s a test for all of us (as far as you’re concerned) and my condoning any particular behaviour.

I don’t understand this. Could you re-phrase?

You see sexuality as a test. Some things mustn’t be done. Natural urges must be overcome. One must follow the rules. Sex must be Ordered Towards Conception! Some people fail. But this is not how everyone sees it. If you feel that they should play by your rules, then let them know. But there is no compulsion that everyone must play by them. They are your rules and you have to follow them.

Well, that would include adultery, wouldn’t it? Because 2 people who are fornicating have to sneak away and lie about it–so that would indicate it’s consensual.

Again, just because I’m pointing something obvious out does NOT mean that I condone it.

I think that’s quite evident from looking at society–don’t you? That’s why God sent the Redeemer.

Well, again, it’s not working according to your rules. Not ‘wasn’t working’, but still not working a couple of thousand years after God sent us some help.

I am talking about the bigger picture here, instead of simply gay sex (which clearly wasn’t part of the Plan since the parts don’t even go together.) I am talking about all of us with our failings, in all the myriad ways we as human persons are not who we should be.

Correct. There’s a bigger picture which affects us all. So why is there constant focus on just one small aspect of society when according to you, we’re all in it together and are all failing miserably?

This is similar to the argument about contraception. Almost all Catholics are or have used it. The Church needs to gets its own house in order before dictating to anyone else. Same with this aspect of sexuality. On your own admission you’re all failing.

What was that about beams and motes…?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Bradski, the Church isn’t dictating to anyone. She is laying out the truth of nature as designed by God. There are natural penalties for violating nature. There are Divine penalties as well. The Church informs us of both. The decisions are ours. So where precisely is your problem, the Church can’t change human nature and she cannot change the Commandments of God?

Linus2nd

 

[Bradski]

Bradski, the Church isn’t dictating to anyone.

If that were true, then we wouldn’t be constantly having these discussions. I’ll grant that not every Catholic, nor anyone else who follows Christianity or any other religion wants to dictate to everyone else.

But you’d have to be pretty naive not to realise that the Christian Right has an enormous influence not just on sexual matters but on any matter it considers within its moral domain.

It’s not the fact that Christians simply say that we will not indulge in homosexual behavior or we will not perform gay marriages in our churches. The attitude is that everyone else, Christian or otherwise, must follow Christian rules.

As I said, your arguments would carry more weight if there were even a simple majority of Christians who followed their own rules. The fact, admitted quite readily, that almost none of you do results in the perception that you are saying ‘do as we say, not as we do’.

It seems quite the done thing to piously state: ‘I am not worthy - I am just as much a sinner as everyone else!’ and then in the next breath dictate what everyone else should be doing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If that were true, then we wouldn’t be constantly having these discussions. I’ll grant that not every Catholic, nor anyone else who follows Christianity or any other religion wants to dictate to everyone else.

But you’d have to be pretty naive not to realise that the Christian Right has an enormous influence not just on sexual matters but on any matter it considers within its moral domain.

It’s not the fact that Christians simply say that we will not indulge in homosexual behavior or we will not perform gay marriages in our churches. The attitude is that everyone else, Christian or otherwise, must follow Christian rules.

The American political system is designed around people promoting their interests. In the case of Christians, our interest is the salvation of the world. As such, it is not surprising that we would oppose legalizing things that are harmful to people, especially things that we consider to be harmful to children. And please – you don’t have to argue about whether there are such harms. There is a single question: do you believe it is my right, as a citizen of this country, to vote and advocate for whatever laws I think will produce the best interests of *everyone *in the country?

If yes, then you agree with the Constitution. You can argue with me about what the best interests of the country are – although that involves proving my religion wrong, most likely.

If no, then you disagree with the Constitution. The Constitution does not forbid people from voting or advocating on the basis of their consciences.

As I said, your arguments would carry more weight if there were even a simple majority of Christians who followed their own rules. The fact, admitted quite readily, that almost none of you do results in the perception that you are saying ‘do as we say, not as we do’.

It seems quite the done thing to piously state: ‘I am not worthy - I am just as much a sinner as everyone else!’ and then in the next breath dictate what everyone else should be doing.

Depends on the case. If a person is advocating that gay sex should be illegal, and all the while engaging in it, that’s pretty hypocritical. But if a person opposes gay marriage out of concern for the welfare of children, and yet sometimes looks at pornography, there’s no hypocrisy there at all. It’s not hypocrisy for a habitual speeder to pass laws against drunk driving.

 

[Bradski]

The American political system is designed around people promoting their interests. In the case of Christians, our interest is the salvation of the world. As such, it is not surprising that we would oppose legalizing things that are harmful to people, especially things that we consider to be harmful to children.

I’ve no problem with that. But your constitution (and mine) separates the state from the church. If you have an objection to something and enter into a discussion about it, then arguments that devolve purely from biblical passages (especially Leviticus for heaven’s sake) are just not acceptable. Government is, whether you like it or not, a secular organisation and any changes that you might want to existing laws, or any new laws that you would like to see enacted will be, by definition, debated from a secular viewpoint.

Some people attempt this with rather risible results. How many times have you seen someone on this forum exclaim that homosexuality is a recognised medical disorder? It doesn’t matter how many times you point out that not one reputable organisation in any civilised country on the planet agrees with that (including such bastions of gay rights as China!), it is simply ignored. It becomes ‘fingers-in-the-ear time’.

So if you want to change a law or introduce one that will, for example, disallow gay couples to adopt, then quoting scripture and repeating the mantra that ‘it’s unnatural’ will get you just about as far as you have to date. And that is apoint where an increasingly number of people realise that there is no valid secular argument to be had.

If a person is advocating that gay sex should be illegal, and all the while engaging in it, that’s pretty hypocritical. But if a person opposes gay marriage out of concern for the welfare of children, and yet sometimes looks at pornography, there’s no hypocrisy there at all. It’s not hypocrisy for a habitual speeder to pass laws against drunk driving.

I’ll skip on you mentioning the fact that some might like to make gay sex illegal after suggesting that no-one is trying to dictate what others should do…

But to continue…the majority of Christians argue against homosexuality because ‘it is unnatural’. But then so is contraception. So are many and varied sexual acts. So is having sex without it being Ordered Towards Conception! Motes and beams.

The nub of the argument is that acting on gay desires is immoral. There is then a deafening silence while we all think on this before someone like me asks: so you want to legislate morality?

Let me know if you do.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
There is then a deafening silence while we all think on this before someone like me asks: so you want to legislate morality?

Let me know if you do.

Whether we want to, or not, every law regarding human behavior is legislating morality. The key question: Is this morality based on truth or on some whim of the majority or the one(s) with the most power?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Whether we want to, or not, every law regarding human behavior is legislating morality. The key question: Is this morality based on truth or on some whim of the majority or the one(s) with the most power?

Indeed. I would have a strong objection to someone legislating anything OTHER than morality. If it’s not a matter of moral importance, the government shouldn’t be telling me what to do.

 

[Bradski]

Indeed. I would have a strong objection to someone legislating anything OTHER than morality. If it’s not a matter of moral importance, the government shouldn’t be telling me what to do.

You’re looking down the wrong end of the telescope.I didn’t ask if there was a moral component to any given law (but as you mentioned it, could you perhaps tell me why it is moral to let’s say buy a drink at 5 to midnight and immoral to do so 10 minutes later?).

What I asked was whether you would be prepared to base a law purely on something you believe to be immoral.

So would you make sex outside marriage illegal? Or contraception? Or masturbation? Or infidelity? Or gay sex? Or looking at porn? Or oral sex? Or blasphemy?

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, in exactly the same way. As in it’s a test.

Fair enough.

So your wife is testing you each and every time you go to a party. Or to a movie. Or out to dinner.

 

[PRmerger]

You see sexuality as a test.

Um…no. I don’t see sexuality as a test.

Some things mustn’t be done. Natural urges must be overcome

Disordered urges must be overcome.

One must follow the rules. Sex must be Ordered Towards Conception!

Sure. You have some rules, too.

Some people fail.

:sad_yes:

But this is not how everyone sees it. If you feel that they should play by your rules, then let them know.

I’m pretty sure that’s what we’ve been doing here as Catholics.

But there is no compulsion that everyone must play by them. They are your rules and you have to follow them.

Well, only in the same way that saying, “Math is the rules of the mathematicians but I don’t have to play by those rules.”

Yep, pretty much you do.

If you are a rational person.

Well, again, it’s not working according to your rules. Not ‘wasn’t working’, but still not working a couple of thousand years after God sent us some help.

Why do you think that this means that there’s something wrong with the Rules rather than the people who don’t follow the rules?

Correct. There’s a bigger picture which affects us all. So why is there constant focus on just one small aspect of society when according to you, we’re all in it together and are all failing miserably?

Well, if you take my posts as a microcosm of what the Church focuses on, you can see that it is indeed “just one small aspect of” the religious dialogue.

This is similar to the argument about contraception. Almost all Catholics are or have used it. The Church needs to gets its own house in order before dictating to anyone else. Same with this aspect of sexuality. On your own admission you’re all failing.

Abusus non tollit usum.

What was that about beams and motes…?

Are you trying to make a hypocrisy objection? Saying that Catholics are hypocrites because they point out sins in others while not seeing their own sins?

If so, I think you are mixing your metaphors.

What you are doing is taking an inanimate moral law and giving it “beams and motes” because those who have been given this inanimate moral law don’t follow it.

It is the human person who has “beams and motes”.

Not a moral law.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re looking down the wrong end of the telescope.I didn’t ask if there was a moral component to any given law (but as you mentioned it, could you perhaps tell me why it is moral to let’s say buy a drink at 5 to midnight and immoral to do so 10 minutes later?).

Well, I think that’s pretty simple.

The moral law that we are acknowledging is “It is bad to be drunk”.

So in order to prevent this we limit the times that alcohol is available.

The morality being proposed isn’t “It’s moral to buy liquor at 11:59 and immora at 12:01” but rather, “It is bad to be drunk, so we will limit the amount of time liquor is saleable.”

 

[PRmerger]

Again, just because I’m pointing something obvious out does NOT mean that I condone it.

You don’t think “consenting adults” is the paradigm for a moral sexual liaison?

Well, again, it’s not working according to your rules. Not ‘wasn’t working’, but still not working a couple of thousand years after God sent us some help.

Correct. There’s a bigger picture which affects us all. So why is there constant focus on just one small aspect of society when according to you, we’re all in it together and are all failing miserably?

This is similar to the argument about contraception. Almost all Catholics are or have used it. The Church needs to gets its own house in order before dictating to anyone else. Same with this aspect of sexuality. On your own admission you’re all failing.

What was that about beams and motes…?

You keep circling around the block with your oblique references to us “all failing”. You keep mentioning it, and I don’t think you’ve yet completed the circle in your mind as to what your argument is.

Your position is: we fail, according to the Catholic paradigm, therefore that means…"

…what? (As far as the moral law is concerned.)

That the moral law is wrong because we keep failing?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You’re looking down the wrong end of the telescope.I didn’t ask if there was a moral component to any given law (but as you mentioned it, could you perhaps tell me why it is moral to let’s say buy a drink at 5 to midnight and immoral to do so 10 minutes later?).

What I asked was whether you would be prepared to base a law purely on something you believe to be immoral.

So would you make sex outside marriage illegal? Or contraception? Or masturbation? Or infidelity? Or gay sex? Or looking at porn? Or oral sex? Or blasphemy?

False: If a thing is immoral, it should therefore be illegal.
True: If a thing is illegal, its illegality must be because of some potential for immoral harm (however remote).

So no, I wouldn’t make any of the things you mentioned illegal, with the possible exceptions of abortifacient contraceptives and the publishing/manufacture of porn. Oh, and I think no-fault divorce should be illegal – though not retroactively so – and that cheating on a spouse should be grounds for a divorce.