Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

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?

Yep. That’s the question.

 

[PRmerger]

First denying that sterile couples could licitly have sex, now this.

Be careful, Dr. Taffy. I won’t report you for this, as it is of supreme benefit to you to be here, in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

But it is against forum rules to misrepresent another poster’s position. (see #5 under Conduct Rules)

To intentionally misrepresent my position as saying that I am “denying that sterile couples could licitly have sex” when what I most clearly said was certainly permissible is definitely reportable.

Here is what I said:

Of course. As long as it is ordered towards procreation, we say

But I won’t report you, because, as I said, it’s definitely good for you to be hear to learn from us Catholics what the Truth is.

But don’t misrepresent my position again.

 

[CarmelJerome]

So in a discussion with someone regarding the Catholic position on marriage I proffered the natural law argument.

Specifically, I offered the argument: “If an act does not achieve its natural end, that act is detrimental to the organism. Thus, the natural end of the sexual act is to procreate and unite. Any act that thwarts this natural end of the sexual act is therefore immoral. Gay sexual acts do not procreate, (nor unite), therefore they are immoral.”

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?

Responses?

(Note to wags: no comments about whether it’s immoral to shave one’s beard if that someone happens to be a woman. )

Shaving a beard doesn't prevent it from growing. It simply reduces the amount of growth on the face. The old law certainly proscribed shaving because that was often used with depilatories precisely because those were often essential to pagan homoeroticism. 

But growing hair isn't the highest or most complete act of human beings; the whole image of God, male and female, uniting with God Himself in the production of another person made in God's image is. Mankind is the summit of creation, and is the highest natural good of the created order; procreation is the highest of natural actions within the human race, because it's where the meeting between Creator and creation recapitulates the making of the world and the making of the human race; since every human being is by him or herself a new image of the whole creation.

 

[orang]

The human being has a specific immune system showing nature it self’s refusal… to go along with this topic, which would be a suggestion. Intimacy subject is also a subject -about suggestion don’t forget. ( the mating inference)

The human is set up to think in order to avoid making a mistake in this area. The animals and insects cannot as easily say, whoops.

So man’s immunities or what could be said overall defense includes reason in this talked about surviving area. The procreating assets have everything to do with survival including both the species itself and the psychological implications of individual contribution and acceptance.

In human existence the mate represents an acceptance to the other in many significant ways and thus the words such as intimacy and ego can be introduced.

All charity is gained or without, through directive love thy neighbor. ( Saint Catherine of Sienna) /not exact words Im just recalling from remembering.

The only similarity between the beard and this talked about topic, is if something was happening with the beard which was in play concerning something wrong or fashionably so to look at, it was driving everyone banana’s.,or maybe there was some bug or lice problem… All immorality is rooted in theft , mirrored in all nature in many ways including territorial ( instinct for the critters and bugs) and basically represents good manners for, the wholesome intended. God didn’t make condom tree’s for example, man is supposed to work within the science in a reasonable way alongside the given not challenge where life and all that are held below insecure ideas.

 

[Major_Tom]

I am sorry to hear that you are ill! Prayers going up!

As far as what natural law would direct you to do: use the natural cycles of your wife’s infertile periods as times when you can engage in the marital act.

Thank you. I appreciate the prayers.

I choose not to do that, however.

In order to receive my chemotherapy, I am to comply with my insurance provider, which tells me that, if I am going to engage in sexual activity, I am to use two forms of contraception. (Yes, two. The potential for profound birth defects with this drug is well known). If I do not comply, they may likely withhold the drug. What says natural law here? Condoms, or abstinence (which may extend into the years)?

I wasn’t going to post this much detail, as it is a very unusual example, granted. But… laws are supposed to be universals that apply to all situations, right? As does the Law of Gravity? So what does natural law dictate in my situation? And what is my penalty for noncompliance? To whom do I address a more thorough interpretation of “ordered toward”?

 

[Major_Tom]

That’s what we Catholics are trying to do: get you to see that your view on sex is as wrongheaded as someone saying, “I get to have a different opinion than you do on this shape. You want to call it a square, but my opinion is that it’s a circle!”

http://etc-mysitemyway.s3.amazonaws...od-icon-symbols-shapes-shape-square-clear.png

You can call it a circle if you want, but you’re going to be wrong, and it’s our job as proclaimers of truth to correct anyone who is so objectively wrong it’s going to result in his moral/spiritual/mathematical demise.

Definitions are so important. I could use a completely different word (parallelogram), and I’m just as right…

 

[PRmerger]

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.

One of the qualities about the human person is that we have been given the gift of being able to supercede our instinctual urges.

Thus, it may be instinctual for a person to want to spread his seed in every woman he sees, and instinctual for a woman to receive this seed, but, thankfully the thinking human person does not give in to this instincts.

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.

This is absolutely absurd.

What you are proposing is carte blanche license to do anything one wishes, provided it feels good.

If you really believe what you are proposing, then the next time you are waiting your turn patiently at a doctor’s office, and a teenage girl walks in 30 minutes later, stating that she feels impatient right now and can’t wait, you believe the receptionist ought to give in to the teenage girl’s impatience?

Also, can you please elucidate the analogy you were presenting? The one about how based on my logic, we can conclude that raising a kid or killing a kid are analogous?

How does my logic lead to that conclusion?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The human being has a specific immune system showing nature it self’s refusal… to go along with this topic, which would be a suggestion. Intimacy subject is also a subject -about suggestion don’t forget. ( the mating inference)…

Can’t forget the intimacy and its relation to procreation-survival, or otherwise?

The human is set up to think in order to avoid making a mistake in this area. The animals and insects cannot as easily say, whoops…

I’m rather confused at how we arrive at the conclusion we have higher intellect and reason though I agree, but the entire thread would suggest otherwise.

So man’s immunities or what could be said overall defense includes reason in this talked about surviving area. The procreating assets have everything to do with survival so this goal in animals and humans…

So man should be more intelligent-reason about this procreating, survival process?

In human existence the mate represents an acceptance to the other in many significant ways and thus the words such as intimacy and ego can be introduced.

Intimacy subject is also a subject -about suggestion. But is it about procreating/survival.

For example how does this relate to human heterosexual, bi-sexual, homosexual-lesbian?

If the human is set up to think than how is this above comparable?

Further as suggested if a genetic development occurs and is in fact a higher form of procreation than it should be demonstrated it indicates a higher intellect of procreation. In other words no sex at all in this case would be the demonstrated principle which results in a higher form intelligence thus procreation. I’m just saying animals, humans, we are talking higher intellect here.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Book, chapter, and verse, please!

And, I would add, to which YOU, Dr. Taffy, segued into Joseph and Mary not having sex being in the Bible.

Let me re-present the sequence of the dialogue:

Interesting.

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

Book, chapter and verse, please.

Interesting.

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

So, actually, I am asking again where it says in the Bible that Mary and Joseph never had sex, since you presented it in that manner as a follow up to my query.

 

[PRmerger]

Shaving a beard doesn’t prevent it from growing.

So would taking a medication that prevent the beard from growing be contrary to natural law?

 

[Major_Tom]

All acts between a couple engaging in sex must be ordered towards procreation.

Because of the “ordered towards” part.

This is a bit of a companion comment ot my previous one, as it also touches on the importance of this “ordered toward” phrase…

I haven’t seen the link here that connects some of these Darwinian ideas of natural behavior to moral code. I recall that several thinkers have linked some of Darwin’s ideas to Social Darwinian theories in the past that are not pleasant at all. I like Darwin’s idea of natural selection, and have no issue with it. However, definitions and subtleties have a paramount importance. With that in mind, I still haven’t caught who came up this “ordered toward” that is a real linchpin to all these posts. Everything appears hanging on it. Who is the arbiter of this definition? I’d love to check this book out of the library if it’s available…

A) The previous example of binge eating was used as a metaphor to illustrate an inappropriate physical (natural) act. And thus it can also be considered immoral (is that correct?).

B) What is the penalty for this inappropriate act? Is there a police that enforces it?

C) Speaking of binge eating, how about a more subtle example. I ate too much Thanksgiving dinner. Was that immoral? What is the penalty? Am I not still “ordered toward” proper, healthy eating in the macro sense? Is the scale of that offense even worth much pondering?

D) Gary Taylor posted a link earlier that touched on the detail of “ordered toward”. (Thank you, Gary. However, that’s far too dense for the pace at which this conversation is going). I’d appreciate a more succinct link between the science of Darwin, and the connection to judging the morality of intimate relations between a man and wife.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you. I appreciate the prayers.

I choose not to do that, however.

Well, then, I suppose my answer to you would be the same as your answer to a person who says, when told that she ought not eat dessert while she’s getting an infusion of insulin, “I choose not to do that”.

In order to receive my chemotherapy, I am to comply with my insurance provider, which tells me that, if I am going to engage in sexual activity, I am to use two forms of contraception. (Yes, two. The potential for profound birth defects with this drug is well known). If I do not comply, they may likely withhold the drug. What says natural law here? Condoms, or abstinence (which may extend into the years)?

Ok. So what’s your point here?

I couldn’t care less what your insurance company says–it’s not the arbiter of the moral law.

Your insurance company could direct you to eat 2 desserts while getting an infusion of insulin, but that wouldn’t mandate you to do so morally.

I wasn’t going to post this much detail, as it is a very unusual example, granted. But… laws are supposed to be universals that apply to all situations, right? As does the Law of Gravity? So what does natural law dictate in my situation? And what is my penalty for noncompliance?

Natural law dictates that you never do anything which is contrary to the natural moral order of things.

When you have sex, there is a chance, each and every time, that there’s going to be a baby.

If you don’t want a baby, then don’t have sex.

Incidentally, this discussion segues nicely into why contraception and abortion go hand in hand.

A person in your situation using 2 forms of birth control could still get his wife pregnant.

Then what would be your solution?

Abortion, of course.

It simply is the mentality that accompanies the “artificial birth control is a must!” paradigm.

One cannot endorse contraception without endorsing abortion. (Which, if I remember correctly, you do endorse anyway. My comment is directed towards the hapless folks who think that someone can be pro-birth control and anti-abortion. It doesn’t work logically).

To whom do I address a more thorough interpretation of “ordered toward”?

I don’t know what this question means.

 

[PRmerger]

Definitions are so important.

Indeed.

I could use a completely different word (parallelogram), and I’m just as right…

Right. You could even call it “a shape that has 4 equal sides with 4 right angles” and I would give you a

But if someone wants to call it a circle, what would you tell him, Tom?

 

[PRmerger]

A) The previous example of binge eating was used as a metaphor to illustrate an inappropriate physical (natural) act. And thus it can also be considered immoral (is that correct?).

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.

 

[PRmerger]

B) What is the penalty for this inappropriate act? Is there a police that enforces it?

I think it should be same as the penalty for other moral disorders–such as adultery.

What do you think should be the penalty for adultery? Should there be a police that enforces it?

(Assuming that you believe adultery to be immoral.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

the connection to judging the morality of intimate relations between a man and wife.

Themselves I would venture to say. Are you saying anything goes behind doors? I don’t see the deers who mate and breed next to me doing anything but sticking to the procreation survival plan. They don’t skip a beat. They keep better time than my watch.

I’m just saying the higher intellect is about what?

 

[Major_Tom]

Indeed.

Right. You could even call it “a shape that has 4 equal sides with 4 right angles” and I would give you a

But if someone wants to call it a circle, what would you tell him, Tom?

A circle is wrong. However, there is more than one way to state a correct, true answer. Defintions are important. Perhaps you’re drafting a response to my earlier question as I type this, but the definition of “ordered toward” is important. Who defned it? Where can I read it?

 

[PRmerger]

A circle is wrong.

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?

However, there is more than one way to state a correct, true answer.

Very Catholic way to look at things!

Defintions are important.

Yep!

Perhaps you’re drafting a response to my earlier question as I type this, but the definition of “ordered toward” is important. Who defned it? Where can I read it?

I don’t know. It’s probably got the same source as the person who defined what a circle is.

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

 

[PRmerger]

and the connection to judging the morality of intimate relations between a man and wife.

Why would morality in this context be exempt from judgement? I am confused by this suggestion.

 

[orang]

Can’t forget the intimacy and its relation to procreation-survival, or otherwise?

I’m rather confused at how we arrive at the conclusion we have higher intellect and reason though I agree, but the entire thread would suggest otherwise.

So man should be more intelligent-reason about this procreating, survival process?

Intimacy subject is also a subject -about suggestion. But is it about procreating/survival.

For example how does this relate to human heterosexual, bi-sexual, homosexual-lesbian?

If the human is set up to think than how is this above comparable?

Further as suggested if a genetic development occurs and is in fact a higher form of procreation than it should be demonstrated it indicates a higher intellect of procreation. In other words no sex at all in this case would be the demonstrated principle which results in a higher form intelligence thus procreation. I’m just saying animals, humans, we are talking higher intellect here.

First sentence,

I don’t think it can be reasonably asked otherwise? A mating inference would be a dynamic form of acceptance where a unique choice has been made. The choice of preference comes from the social and is representing the species. ( mutually , the acceptance still does continue to represent what it represents individually. ( the mating inference.

Second sentence,

Its not that man should be more intelligent, he is more intelligent.

maybe this was misunderstood, Man can be aware of what he is doing, animals not as much and think in immediacy, the difference can be seen in what happens to an animal when startled…the animal will go into protect fight mode with much less room for aware and opportunity to re-evaluate.

Gary Taylor :

Intimacy subject is also a subject -about suggestion. But is it about procreating/survival.

For example how does this relate to human heterosexual, bi-sexual, homosexual-lesbian?

If the human is set up to think than how is this above comparable?

Further as suggested if a genetic development occurs and is in fact a higher form of procreation than it should be demonstrated it indicates a higher intellect of procreation. In other words no sex at all in this case would be the demonstrated principle which results in a higher form intelligence thus procreation. I’m just saying animals, humans, we are talking higher intellect here. "

orang : ( from the top,

it’s both all at once regardless of the mindset and conscious intentions. The dynamic exchange relates to the groups mentioned in the same way . although consciously the intent or reasoning, lack of reasoning would differ, and then again if differing to the degree of a greater selfishness , could be an all out act of mutually agreed subtle aggression. No different a system then the % of genuineness in the day to day…some people are flat out user’s on one end of it, and some are the opposite and in the mix of it all people find each other. So its quite a thing.

not sure about last paragraph, it seems maybe the idea is using another path to get at giving more justification for intelligence to be reflected in the human overall assessing which makes sense.

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.