Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

You like making this threat, don’t you? You’ve used it several times against me, and I’m sure I’ve seen you use it elsewhere.

Well, feel free. I mean, I think it would be a waste of time and very disrespectful to moderators who must have plenty of real work on a site like this, but I am quite happy to:

1. 
   *]Show exactly where you say exactly what I claim
   *]Show where you explicitly misrepresent my position
   *]While we are at it, all the times you make this threat. Let’s see if they feel making such threats is your job or theirs!

1. 
   While I’m not going to address the rest of the above, as it smacks of “Methinks he doth protest too much!”, I will say that I do like to tell folks who desperately need to be here that they are treading in dangerous waters.
   
   I’m just charitable like that.
   
   And it does seem to be quite effective. I’ve already noticed a change.
   

   Ok, if you first post an explicit statement that you, as a “knowledgeable Catholic”, deny the perpetual virginity of Mary,** or even that she was virgin for a significant period of her marriage to Joseph**, I will post the verse I was referring to.

   Oh, now don’t change your claim, Dr. Taffy.
   
   You stated that people could read the Bible and know that Joseph and Mary never had sex.
   
   Where is this again? Book, chapter and verse, please!
   
   
   

   If you don’t deny this, of course, you are just wasting everyone’s time on a cheap and empty rhetorical ‘gotcha’ rather than substantive dialogue.

   Well, I’m not going to apologize for being amused at the thought of your proclamation regarding the Bible stating something it never does.
   
   On a Catholic forum.
   
   In front of lots of knowledgeable Catholics.
   
   But let me save you any more embarrassment, Dr. Taffy. Regarding the Bible verse that says that Mary and Joseph never had sexual relations:
   
   
   
   That knowledge comes from Sacred Tradtion, Dr. Taffy.
   
   NOT from the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Just so we’re clear about the sequence of dialogue:

I said:

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

Dr. Taffy responded:

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

I asked for the Bible verse to which he was referring.

There was none given.

(Naturally, as there is no verse that associates marriage without sex).

I asked again:

Interesting.

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

Book, chapter and verse, please.

And again:

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!

And again:

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!

No verse has been given to support his claim that the Bible tells us that sex and marriage are dissociated.

Although there was an effort to change the claim to be this:

or even that she was virgin for a significant period of her marriage to Joseph,:

Now, of course that is a different claim altogether. The Bible does state that Mary was a virgin before Jesus was born.

Right here:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 1:25[/BIBLEDRB]

But, of course, the claim that was being made was that the Bible tells us that sex and marriage are not associated with each other.

NOT that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus.

QED

 

[PRmerger]

… you don’t know what ‘quid pro quo’ means, do you?

All I will say is that I know about as much Latin as you do.

If you could do that, I would say that it was pretty useful. Weird, gross, and unhygienic, to be sure, and no way would I be borrowing your lithium batteries, but useful

Of course you can do that.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533227/

Wouldn’t you?

No, I wouldn’t. And neither would you.

It’s an anomalous use of a body party.

It cries out, “DISORDERED!” from every, ahem, orifice.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure that any teacher would not be able to give a definition of a circle that would put the student straight. Such as a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre). It’s not a matter open for discussion. A circle is a circle by definition and geometry will not work if you insist that it’s a plave figure bounf by 4 straight lines.

The question originally was** why **we call it a circle.

What you have done is merely repeat and reiterate a definition. Not give a reason why.

Whether gay sex is right or wrong is a matter of opinion.

That is begging the question, Bradski.

Someone else could say that the definition of a circle is a matter of opinion. In fact, Dr. Taffy actually, astonishingly, did that right here:

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.

Please note that it is not I who bolded the selection above, but rather Dr. Taffy, to emphasize that the definition of a circle is HIS, to the exclusion of others, including said student.

 

[Bradski]

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

That would be Euclid. And you can read abouit it in Euclid’s Elements, Book 1, Defenition 15. aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html

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

Pergatory for too much turkey?

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.

Led Zeppelin’s version of Gallows Pole is better than Leadbelly’s. Is that a True Opinion?

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.

I think that what you have described as marriage is a very romantic and a very recent undertaking. In previous ages (and we’re talking just a couple of hundred years tops), marriage was a deal between families. It was a way to control wealth, property and power. There was no bended knee proposals. There was no equality. Women became essentially the property of the man. A breeding machine for more workers, preferably male.

So it’s not just “consenting adults” that is the cornerstone for your giving the green light to a sexual liaison.

You have other criteria that must be met before it would be ok.

Well, yes. But you knew that already…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Whether gay sex is right or wrong is a matter of opinion.

Conscientious objection, which one may come to develop, its also true we should listen to and respect each others position. We certainly don’t want to persecute what appears to be right reason here over conscientious objection.

 

[Ion]

That would be Euclid. And you can read abouit it in Euclid’s Elements, Book 1, Defenition 15. aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html

That’s good progress.

Pergatory for too much turkey?

Nope, eternity in Hell.

Led Zeppelin’s version of Gallows Pole is better than Leadbelly’s. Is that a True Opinion?

Now you confuse the opinion about a sentence, with the opinion about the logical value of that sentence, weather it is true or false.

I think that what you have described as marriage is a very romantic and a very recent undertaking. In previous ages (and we’re talking just a couple of hundred years tops), marriage was a deal between families. It was a way to control wealth, property and power. There was no bended knee proposals. There was no equality. Women became essentially the property of the man. A breeding machine for more workers, preferably male.

You have read and believed to much syrup.
A father who loves his son, with his life experience he would make a better choice for a bride, 100%. Wealth property and power, this are important things, and they do not fall in your lap just because you have a great opinion about yourself.
Women needed protection and the authority of a husband not only in the family.
“breeding machine” that sounds like your wishful thinking, and that kind of wish can bring one in Hell.
There were different times, indeed, but the marriage should not be different anyway because we as people did not change.

 

[orang]

Its difficult to even know where to begin explaining the birds and bee’s in this one.

 

[Bradski]

Nope, eternity in Hell.

For an extra portion of turkey? Indigestion seems punishment enough…

Now you confuse the opinion about a sentence, with the opinion about the logical value of that sentence, weather it is true or false.

No. ‘I think it’s raining outside’ is an opinion. ‘It is raining outside’ is a statement of fact. Either can be verifiably True or False. ‘I think the Led Zeppelin version is better’ and ‘Led Zeppelin’s version is better’ are both opinions, neither of which can be verifiably True or False.

There were different times, indeed, but the marriage should not be different anyway because we as people did not change.

Our attitudes changed. We did not use to perceive marriage as a matter to be decided between two consenting adults for their own benefit. A marriage was invariably arranged for the purposes I noted earlier, or at best, was a matter of convenience.

What we now consider to be marriage did not exist in its current form in Western Civilisation prior to the late 18th century. If you’d like I can bore everyone with facts and figures and references to that effect. If you’d like to argue against it, then you’ll need to do the same.

 

[Ion]

Our attitudes changed. We did not use to perceive marriage as a matter to be decided between two consenting adults for their own benefit. A marriage was invariably arranged for the purposes I noted earlier, or at best, was a matter of convenience.

Nope, it was arranged by the parents, and they considered the future of the kids together for the whole life, and not only a sexual experiment for a couple of years. Wealth was important, extended family was important,wealth was inherited anyway, kids married at a very young age and had a kid on their own in their 16-18 etc. It took a while until the kid inherited his father, this is why you think that the father did all the arrangement for himself. This rather smells like el cheapo romantic novel of the 18’s (where the reader’s feeling were exploited and was suggested that the young should start a new family with the best sexual experience, and money were to flow onto them from everybody because everybody would love them for such a courageous choice), but maybe happened in some isolated cases. Divorce is much more frequent now.
Anyway the Christian marriage is the same.

 

[Ion]

I think that what you have described as marriage is a very romantic and a very recent undertaking. In previous ages (and we’re talking just a couple of hundred years tops), marriage was a deal between families. It was a way to control wealth, property and power. There was no bended knee proposals. There was no equality. Women became essentially the property of the man. A breeding machine for more workers, preferably male.

Our attitudes changed. We did not use to perceive marriage as a matter to be decided between two consenting adults for their own benefit. A marriage was invariably arranged for the purposes I noted earlier, or at best, was a matter of convenience.

What we now consider to be marriage did not exist in its current form in Western Civilisation prior to the late 18th century. If you’d like I can bore everyone with facts and figures and references to that effect. If you’d like to argue against it, then you’ll need to do the same.

I had the feeling that you supposed that the social changes following the 19 century were caused by psychological causes, like:*** women wanted to end their exploitation in family and equality with men***,which is not true, they started to get jobs in industry then they wanted equal wages for equal work then they wanted an independent status because they could support themselves, but in no way they wanted to finish the families as social structure;*** or young who wanted to follow their heart to make a family rather than to listen to their parents,*** again false, parents couldn’t help them to choose a bride because they did not know the entourage of their young anymore, did not know enough about other families or kids to make a decision, the kids started to develop relations by themselves in school, schooling duration was much longer, and probably many other factors; and the choice was left for the young based on their education.
All the changes were lead by interest in profit and efficiency.
There is nothing profitable in gay marriage, because it does not produce kids.
Because it is against the natural law, it will have negative effect on people and society.
Because it is a sin, it will drive people eternally in Hell.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No. ‘I think it’s raining outside’ is an opinion. ‘It is raining outside’ is a statement of fact. Either can be verifiably True or False. ‘I think the Led Zeppelin version is better’ and ‘Led Zeppelin’s version is better’ are both opinions, neither of which can be verifiably True or False.

(1) “It’s raining outside” could be false, so it is not necessarily a statement of fact. This is why professional philosophers universally call it an opinion. If it’s a true opinion, it might *also *be knowledge. (Otherwise, you would have to say that there are “false facts”, which just sounds strange).

(2) A person who says “Led Zeppelin’s version is better” but doesn’t believe there is a fact of the matter might be paraphrased as saying “I prefer Led Zeppelin’s version”.

(3) No one has said that we could scientifically *verify *that gay sex or gay marriage is wrong. Nor can we scientifically verify that stealing is wrong, or that eating the dead is wrong. Surely we have evidence for some or all of these things, but it is not scientific evidence.

(4) The Led Zeppelin example objects to the notion of aesthetic facts. Fine. But do you really object to the notion of **moral **facts? Do you think that “Hitler was a wonderfully generous man” is just as true as “Hitler was a scoundrel”?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My good doctor, I’m going to narrow the topic to one particular thread running through the discussion. I asked if there was anything special about the sexual organs. You said:

I don’t see that there is anything special about the sexual organs. Sure, they have unique qualities, but so do most organs. And many cases of sexual abuse do not directly involve the genitalia, nor is that where the harm occurs - it is in the brain that the relevant harm occurs.

First of all, this point about the brain doesn’t make sense to me. It is true that the brain is where we experience all trauma, but it does not follow that this trauma begins with the brain. If you cut off my arm, I will feel it “in” my brain, but it is my arm that has the problem, not my brain.

Let me give a personal example, at the risk of embarrassment. When I was about 11, my older brother, who was going through normal teenage sexual confusion, began to display some behavior that was surreptitiously sexual toward me – not touching, but visual. It had a very deep and confusing effect on me, because it had to do with sex; I think we all know this sort of feeling, which (welcome or unwelcome) often evokes curiosity in children. The confusion and the curiosity – all of it – came because of the sexual/genital nature of the interaction. If it had had nothing to do with the genitals, then there would have been no sexual harm done whatsoever.

Can you describe to me a case of sexual abuse that does not involve the genitals, either in themselves or represented through words?

Sure. If you rape a child, or drive drunk through downtown at 100mph, you have done something gravely immoral even if no actual physical or psychological harm occurs.

Of course you have. Apparently you haven’t been reading my writing very carefully. I am saying that actions that tend toward harm are always wrong, whether or not harm actually occurs in a given case.

Unless, I suppose, you want to drastically widen the definition of ‘harm’ - but that is something I associate with consequentialist philosophy that you apparently want to distance yourself from?

To harm is to worsen someone’s condition, whether physically, psychologically, or morally.

:ehh:
…how … nice.

And thank you so much for sharing.:frighten:

OK, I can’t resist responding here. An Aristotelian virtue is a habitual disposition that leads to excellent action in ANY sphere of life. Thus, it is virtuous to be good at soccer, it is virtuous to sing well, and it is virtuous – yes – to be potty trained. I cannot think of any sphere of human action that could not conceivably involve the application of some sort of excellence, so a completely virtuous person would be virtuous, then, in every single action.

I don’t personally think that it’s morally wrong not to be good at potty training, but it is a lack of virtue, in the strict Aristotelian sense of the word.

Seriously, one of the things I still don’t understand about whatever it is that we are debating is whether it is your own personal attitude to gay marriage that only affects your own life, or a broader question of whether others who do not share your beliefs should be permitted gay marriage.

It makes a big difference, at least in my mind, to the standard to which arguments should be held.

I think we’re doing something logically prior to all those arguments. I asserted that “sex is obviously morally charged”, and you denied it. You have not satisfactorily responded to my arguments, since you seem to think that child sexual abuse is wrong because of a consent issue.

Can you tell me any other area of life (other than sex and severe bodily harm) in which a parent is not allowed to give consent on behalf of their child? Why, in your opinion, is a parent not allowed to give consent in the case of sex?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How about if you tell somebody that something is wrong because think it doesn’t make you personally happier.

That would be wrong. But if I have evidence that it doesn’t make people in general live happier and more rewarding lives, then I don’t think it’s wrong to use that as evidence that it is wrong. The evidence is not only personal, since it is easy enough to tell that people who live lives consisting of homosexual sex are less likely to make lasting meaningful commitments and more likely to commit suicide, for example.

I think that the term ‘pleasure’ on this context is a synonym for happiness.

Couldn’t be. Bahman said that pleasure added meaning to life, when someone is depressed. The implication was that pleasure could help a person emerge from depression. Now, it’s obvious that pleasure can be chosen for, in such a situation, but happiness cannot. You cannot choose to be happy; it doesn’t work that way.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1. A person who says “Led Zeppelin’s” version is better.

Pretty much sums up gay sex. If there wasn’t an “original version” which gave life to the notes and created the song and lyrics. Then you couldn’t have had the other to choose from.

The point one prefers Delta Blues over Classic Rock-Blues is rather irrelevant.

 

[PRmerger]

That would be Euclid. And you can read abouit it in Euclid’s Elements, Book 1, Defenition 15. aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html

So the Arabs and Chinese didn’t know what a circle was until Euclid defined it for them?

Also, given our prior discussions regarding consistency in demand for evidence, what evidence do you have that Euclid actually wrote “Euclid’s Elements”?

Pergatory for too much turkey?

Probably. As long as one is still attached to turkey over what we really ought to be attached to, we need us some Purgatory to clean us up.

Led Zeppelin’s version of Gallows Pole is better than Leadbelly’s. Is that a True Opinion?

Eww. Both are gross.

However, to your point–the fact that there ARE opinions in the world doesn’t mean that all things are opinions ONLY.

(Sheesh! What’s with insistence with ONLYs in discussions regarding Truth? Pretty much the only “ONLY” we have in Catholicism is this: Salvation comes ONLY through Jesus Christ, and is made manifest ONLY through His Body, the Catholic Church."

The rest of the “ONLYs” are really false dichotomies (i.e. Scripture ONLY. Faith ONLY. Science ONLY. King James translation ONLY. Latin ONLY. Latin Masses ONLY. Communion on the tongue ONLY. There are opinions ONLY). None of them need be ONLYs, except man has interjected ONLYs where there need be none.)

I think that what you have described as marriage is a very romantic and a very recent undertaking. In previous ages (and we’re talking just a couple of hundred years tops), marriage was a deal between families. It was a way to control wealth, property and power. There was no bended knee proposals. There was no equality. Women became essentially the property of the man. A breeding machine for more workers, preferably male.

Sadly, this is true.

Romance and love were usually superfluous.

Well, yes. But you knew that already…

Could you please reiterate what your criteria are for a moral sexual liaison?

 

[Bradski]

That would be wrong. But if I have evidence that it doesn’t make people in general live happier and more rewarding lives, then I don’t think it’s wrong to use that as evidence that it is wrong. The evidence is not only personal, since it is easy enough to tell that people who live lives consisting of homosexual sex are less likely to make lasting meaningful commitments and more likely to commit suicide, for example.

If it’s wrong, then you shouldn’t claim it.

But I don’t think engaging in them makes me a better person or makes me happier, so I think they are wrong.

But I am glad that you’re basing your views on your concern for the well being of gay people. Do you have any figures on the propensity of people leaving gay marriages? And of gay marriages causing suicide?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Those stats would help. I’d be more interested in the psychological profiles of gay individuals who seem to fit clearly in the normal category. I can’t relate to this, I have only seen these individuals “with” behavior issues, cross addicted, dual diagnosed and so forth. But this is the same with various behaviors. That’s why I’d love to see the work done on the normal which I know exist, I just haven’t personally observed them.

This whole thing becomes rather intrusive also in this regard to human rights. Which is why I say, respect should be first and foremost. You know all this will get personal admittedly.

 

[Bradski]

So the Arabs and Chinese didn’t know what a circle was until Euclid defined it for them?

Also, given our prior discussions regarding consistency in demand for evidence, what evidence do you have that Euclid actually wrote “Euclid’s Elements”

Everyone knew what a circle was as soon as they looked at a full moon. Pi was understood long before Euclid. But what we needed, and what you asked for, was a written definition. Euclid is generally regarded as the father of geometry and was the first person to list definitions and axioms which allowed Euclidean geometry to proceed (the one you learned in school).

So a circle is a circle by definition. It is not an opinion. It is not a matter of interpretation. If you define it any other way, then geometry will not work. You cannot call it a square.

And it doesn’t matter if you accept Euclid wrote the definition or it was written by his kid sister. The definitions stand.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But I am glad that you’re basing your views on your concern for the well being of gay people. Do you have any figures on the propensity of people leaving gay marriages? And of gay marriages causing suicide?

The connection between homosexuality and suicide is well-documented, and I know of no reputable gay marriage advocate that denies it. They tend to claim that the suicides result from social rejection, but the suicide rates among gay people have not significantly declined over the past 30 years, despite increased acceptance of homosexuality – which makes one wonder if the temptation to suicide is part and parcel to the sexual activity.

As for statistics on gay marriage, it is far too early to have any reliable data on that point. If it turns out that marriages between gay people who call themselves Catholic are as stable and monogamous as Catholic marriages between people faithful to the Magesterium, I will reconsider my view on gay marriage (both in society and, perhaps, in the Church). If it turns out that statistics on promiscuity, drug use, STDs and suicide among actively gay people change in the coming years, I will reconsider my view on gay sex. I don’t expect these things to change, since God made the world and its consequences, but I’m open to changing my views as the evidence changes.

Are you? If it did turn out that gay people are disproportionately unfaithful in marriages, would this cause you to oppose gay marriage? Why or why not?