Beards and Gay Marriage

[Bahman]

I’ve been bereaved. Does that count?

Pleasure seeking does not help. It’s a detour, a symptom of a need that is not being met - usually a psychological or social one. We humans, we do it all the time. In the elderly, dementia often works its way out like this. An elderly person with dementia may end up pacing around their room, or throwing cups into the sink, or even walk around naked in a nursing facility, all because he needs to use the lavatory, and doesn’t realise it.

We young people, we’re not much different are we? We need meaning in our lives. When my Dad died four years ago, a big part of what meant anything to me in the world died, too. He was my friend, my counselor, my advisor - my Dad. Best layman in the world I know of. There was one night I remember… that I don’t want to remember. But I did try pleasure to alleviate the pain (some rounds of Team Fortress 2, if you must know). Didn’t work. In short, I needed something to give meaning back to my life.

Pleasure would only have delayed the inevitable need to search for meaning.

And sex serves two purposes. Doesn’t take a genius to recognise one of them is reproduction. But we’re pretty good at denying things in this culture.

Yes, that counts. But do you think that words would help in giving a meaning to life of a person who is extremely depressed? It is matter of how do we feel rather than what we know.

 

[Bahman]

Well, only in the sense that they are analogs.

Take this example:

Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring.

If one doesn’t have the ability to understand analogies, he might exclaim, “Are we going to compare a magnificent Christmas tree with a fleshy piece of cartilage?”

So based on your logic, I would say that raising a kid or killing a kid are analogous!

 

[PRmerger]

So based on your logic, I would say that raising a kid or killing a kid are analogous!

In what way?

 

[Bahman]

In what way?

In the way that you argue that having sex and killing a kid are analogous. That was not me!, that was you.

 

[PRmerger]

In the way that you argue that having sex and killing a kid are analogous. That was not me!, that was you.

Please articulate the analogy as you see it, Bahman.

Right now, it appears that you do not seem to have the ability to understand analogies.

So, again, how are raising a child and killing a child analogous, using “my logic”?

 

[DrTaffy]

Secondly, you have attached some sort of ridiculous assertion that being ONE FLESH means that we are “bonded together as siamese twins.” That is your assertion. Not mine.

The words mean what they mean. If you are using them to mean something other than their face value, then that is a clear example of what I mean by you using jargon to obscure rather than elucidate.

Now, rather than cherry picking an endless series of individual phrases that you can use to make empty rhetorical gestures, would you like to engage with the actual substantive arguments I have made?

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?

Can you please tell us how you would do that?

Why do you call it a circle?

To the limited extent that it matters in maths, I would merely point out that this is what I mean by a circle, I may give the historical etymological background, then get to the relevant points of discussing it’s properties.

‘Relevant points’ seeming to be things you avoid like the plague.

I don’t care particularly what it is called, as long as we know what we are all talking about. Compare this to the case of same sex marriage - despite the fact that ‘marriage’ has historically referred to all sorts of things that would not fit in with Catholic dogma, including same sex marriage, you want to force everyone to use your restrictive definition.

Interesting.

Can you cite the Bible verse that states that marriage doesn’t necessarily have to involve sex?

Interesting.

Are you denying that Joseph and Mary were married? Or claiming that they had sex?

Please do quote the Bible verses that support this view.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you denying that Joseph and Mary were married? Or claiming that they had sex?

Please do quote the Bible verses that support this view.

Of course I’m not denying it.

I’d like for you however to back up your claim that the bible states that Mary and Joseph never had sex.

That’s your claim isn’t it? That if we read the bible it will tell us this?

Please cite book, chapter and verse please!

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12003505:

Do I take it that you accept the falsehood of that naive version of a natural law argument?

Yes.

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?

DrTaffy;12003505:

Rape is wrong, yes. This is because of lack of informed consent, not the sex of those involved.

No, that’s not why abusing children is wrong. Consent has NOTHING to do with it. Sex with children is wrong because it harms children.

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)

If it did not tend to harm children, then it would be just like other activities that we do not require children to consent to – going to the dentist, for example.

:bigyikes:

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

At any rate, I don’t think using an erection as a hat hook is seriously immoral, no, but I have a very hard time understanding how it could be an expression of virtue – perhaps in the context of foreplay? At any rate, the question is: what is the purpose of such an action?

To hold a hat?

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

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

You seem to believe that I am somehow attempting to impose my view on others. Explain how.

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!

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.

 

[DrTaffy]

Of course I’m not denying it.

Then you admit I am right. Again.

You’re not doing too well on knowing your Catholic doctrine, are you? First denying that sterile couples could licitly have sex, now this.

I’d like for you however to back up your claim that the bible states that Mary and Joseph never had sex.

Please quote where I said that the Bible said any such thing?

And can you really not cite Biblical evidence that Mary was a virgin, at least at the time of Jesus’ birth?

Again, care to get back to discussing the issue, or are jibes, ad hominem and failed attempts at rhetorical 'gotcha’s all you have?

 

[Bahman]

Please articulate the analogy as you see it, Bahman.

Right now, it appears that you do not seem to have the ability to understand analogies.

So, again, how are raising a child and killing a child analogous, using “my logic”?

Instinct is the engine for life machinery. We do things because we are alive in another word because we have instinct. Eating, having sex, enjoying music, feeling jealous, becoming angry, killing others, having greed,… it is all because of instinct and we do it because we do feel to do so. Should we blame a person who does a thing based on what s/he feels to do considering all the circumstances, life history, who really they are, what they really need,…?

In simple word, the feeling is the meaning. So if a homosexual person feel to do so that means that life means to do so from his/her perspective, of course not from yours.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Instinct is the engine for life machinery. We do things because we are alive in another word because we have instinct. Eating, having sex, enjoying music, feeling jealous, becoming angry, killing others, having greed,… it is all because of instinct and we do it because we do feel to do so. Should we blame a person who does a thing based on what s/he feels to do considering all the circumstances, life history, who really they are, what they really need,…?

In simple word, the feeling is the meaning. So if a homosexual person feel to do so that means that life means to do so from his/her perspective, of course not from yours.

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? We shouldn’t blame them for anything?

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

 

[GaryTaylor]

In simple word, the feeling is the meaning.

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

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

 

[Ion]

Can you actually answer the question (or any of the other questions), or are smileys all you have?

Why can a same sex couple not, according to you, enter into a marriage and not have sex?

Because a homosexual is homosexual only after he made his decision and put in practiced. Therefore he can’t.

 

[PRmerger]

To the limited extent that it matters in maths, I would merely point out that this is what I mean by a circle, I may give the historical etymological background, then get to the relevant points of discussing it’s properties.

Ah, I see, then.

So as a teacher when the student tells you, “Well, since it’s just what you mean by a circle, I have a different defintion. And I want to now say that this is a circle. And it would appear, by your own paradigm, that you cannot correct me. You can only give me what you believe is your personal opinion regarding a circle.”

http://pad2.whstatic.com/images/thumb/b/b3/Square-Intro.jpg/300px-Square-Intro.jpg

What an inutile paradigm you’ve set yourself up for, Dr. Taffy!

You will never be able to teach anyone anything, without it having as much impetus as a proclamation that you believe that turnips are a better vegetable than parsnips.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Yes, that counts. But do you think that words would help in giving a meaning to life of a person who is extremely depressed? It is matter of how do we feel rather than what we know.

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.)

 

[TarkanAttila]

Ah, I see, then.

So as a teacher when the student tells you, “Well, since it’s just what you mean by a circle, I have a different defintion. And I want to now say that this is a circle. And it would appear, by your own paradigm, that you cannot correct me. You can only give me what you believe is your personal opinion regarding a circle.”

You know, the more and more I read this, the more and more I begin to think modern atheism is really nothing more than metaphysical Protestantism.

 

[Brendan_64]

Question: the “natural end” of the beard is to grow. Thus, it would appear to be contrary to the moral law to shave one’s beard. Clearly, this is not immoral. But why?

Why stop at beards, what about hair? It grows too, so should we all be walking around with hair to our knees and beards to our waists? And why stop there, what about fingernails and toenails?

 

[PRmerger]

The words mean what they mean. If you are using them to mean something other than their face value, then that is a clear example of what I mean by you using jargon to obscure rather than elucidate.

Exactly.

Quid pro quo.

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?

Well, unless you want to say that using your stomach to hold your lithium batteries (so you’ll always have them when you need them!) is a useful practice, I think we both agree that certain things have certain purposes. And to use them for alternate practices can be a very bad thing indeed.

I don’t care particularly what it is called, as long as we know what we are all talking about.

LOL!

Compare this to the case of same sex marriage - despite the fact that ‘marriage’ has historically referred to all sorts of things that would not fit in with Catholic dogma, including same sex marriage, you want to force everyone to use your restrictive definition.

I’m sure you could find some examples of bizarre relationships that were called marriages throughout history, but I think only extremists would ever deny that historically, marriage has meant 1 thing: a lifelong commitment between 2 people of opposite gender which is beneficial to the raising of children.

 

[PRmerger]

You know, the more and more I read this, the more and more I begin to think modern atheism is really nothing more than metaphysical Protestantism.

Indeed.

And I would add that some of the modern atheists here on the CAFs seem to be more like the metaphysical equivalent of fundamentalist Evangelicals.

:sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

Please quote where I said that the Bible said any such thing?

My apologies. How about you back up your assertion, then, that you were making regarding the Bible supporting marriage without sex

And I find it astonishing that there are folks here who actually want to associate marriage without sex.

Gosh, almost as though they’ve read the Bible!

Book, chapter, and verse, please!