Beards and Gay Marriage

[GaryTaylor]

Animals, right they instinctively know the natural order, they don’t loose sight of it, they have variation within it with species, and its acceptable that its ordered to the instinctive natural order. Man on the other hand easily can loose sight of the order which we see. So in this sense we call ourselves the higher intellect why? Why do we loose sight and the animals don’t?

And who will lead us through this lost dilemma? The guy with the higher moral order or lower moral order?

 

[PRmerger]

And they will not engage in sexual activity for pleasure. Are you suggesting we should base public policy on the behavior of Black Swans?

Yes they do. And courtship and affection displays.

Interesting.

Can you cite the studies that demonstrate that animals engage in sexual activity for pleasure?

I am curious how studies would measure the intention of an animal–he is engaging in mating for pleasure, and we know this, how?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The history of the entire world is a “mountain of evidence” against same-sex marriage.

As if one really needed that history as opposed to common sense.

 

[stewstew03]

Quite simply that repeating the assertion with no attempt to justify or explain it is a waste of time. How is this not clear? :ehh:

Agreed – “waste of time” pretty much sums up our dialogue… are you on CAF just to troll? Clearly you didn’t come here to engage in meaningful dialogue.

http://clearingthefogradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Internet-Troll.jpg

 

[DrTaffy]

Which doesn’t apply to the references you provided.

Yes it does. Try actually reading them, or at least the ones where I included a quote. For example:
E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer 108-09 (1951):

What seems to us, but not at all to Nuer, a somewhat strange union is that in which a woman marries another woman and counts as the pater [father] of the children born of the wife. Such marriages are by no means uncommon in Nuerland, and they must be regarded as a form of simple legal marriage, for the woman-husband marries her wife in exactly the same way as a man marries a woman.

In my culture (the USA) we only have one game called football. Some other cultures call soccer; football, but I don’t think they have another game also called football.

So if some Brits turned up in your town and formed a football team, would you be demanding that they instead call it by your term, or that they play by your rules? Even if they showed you the historical evidence of ‘football’ being used to describe their game?

If male-male pairing has a higher success rate (lower mortality rate) for raising offspring, than male-female pairs, and there are no female-female pairs then I would concluded that pairing is not sexual but is a more successful way to raise black swans, while male-male pairing has a zero success rate in creating black swans.

You seem to be bending over backwards to avoid calling a spade a spade. They are having sex, but it is not a sexual relationship because they are better at raising kids?

Well then, good news everyone! There is evidence that same sex human couples are also better at childraising, so clearly gay couples are not ‘sexual’.

(And I don’t know either way if there are or are not female-female pairs. If the article said anything about lesbian swans it didn’t register with me)

 

[DrTaffy]

Interesting.

Can you cite the studies that demonstrate that animals engage in sexual activity for pleasure?

Ok, clarification: The male-male black swans have sex. I make no assertion as to whether or not it is for pleasure. But what other reason do you suggest they have? Baiting Catholics?

stewstew03 did assert that they do not “engage in sexual activity for pleasure”, so maybe he could answer how he knows that?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Whats the difference between a sexual relationship and marriage, how is this reconciled? What is in fact a sexual relatiuonship? Perhaps thats the issue?

I’ve only been using animals as example, us being of higher intellect ought to be able to clearly comprehend this and discuss and define.

 

[GaryTaylor]

For example Bongo isn’t our “par-excellence” for certain. It may be true that in a state of anxiety and depression he perfers to play with other males or whatever. But, we are not attemting to be “like” Bongo…we are “smarter” no?

 

[DrTaffy]

Agreed – “waste of time” pretty much sums up our dialogue… are you on CAF just to troll? Clearly you didn’t come here to engage in meaningful dialogue.

So you are demonstrating the Catholic approach to meaningful dialogue by calling me a troll and posting an insulting image? :ehh:

Rather than, for example, engaging in any of the meaningful points that I made to you, for the second time, in that same article, and that I now present for the third time:

How can you claim that marriage is ‘for’ the State to promote conception, when it does no such thing? Marriage is neither necessary for nor even helpful for conception. Indeed, marriage can only prevent conception, as when someone who is both willing and able to have children ends up married for life to someone who is either unwilling or unable.

Further, if promoting conception were the purpose for marriage, why would the State give marriage licenses to those who had not conceived, nor made any commitment to do so? The obvious thing would be to grant the rights only to those who had already conceived.

Finally, if promoting conception were the purpose for marriage, same sex couples who had conceived would be more worthy of marriage licenses than childless heterosexual couples. The State, after all, doesn’t care about the child’s genes, as long as they are being adequately cared for. So a couple who have produced kids (and are raising kids, which is where marriage does help) should have the same marriage rights whatever their gender.

Oops, missed one. So really and truly Finally this time, can you explain why the definition of marriage must exclude all forms of marriage that you oppose, whereas the same is not true for the definition of ‘Sex’. Or to look at it another way, why does admitting that polygamous marriages were in fact marriages imply support for polygamy?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How about any mathematical proof?

Take any of the proofs of the Pythagorean theorem, for example.

But hang about - a moment ago you were chiding me for suggesting that religious based arguments are subjective, now you are arguing that all arguments are subjective. How is this not self-contradictory?

I said that “knowledge derived from religion is objective.” Apparently you don’t know the difference between knowledge and an argument?

The premises of a religious argument can be objectively true, just as much as the premises of a non-religious argument can be objectively true. But premises are always subjectively held, and we don’t have any God’s-eye view to evaluate whether are premises are objectively true.

But no, the Pythagorean theorem is just a subjective argument, based on subjective beliefs. The premises may be objectively true, but we cannot step outside our own subjective consciousnesses to verify them.

They can be. The golden rule is not invalidated just because many religions state it as part of their philosophy.

Surely you see the difference between a truth that can be shown objectively, but which you hold for religious reasons, and one that rests solely on the authority of your religious beliefs?

I don’t have any opinions that rest solely on the authority of my religious beliefs – and I hope other Christians don’t either. You talk as if Christians believed that faith was irrational. That is VERY far from the truth.

The claim that “religious views shouldn’t influence public policy” assumes that religious views are not true, and moreover assumes that religious views cannot be held rationally. Don’t you see how offensive that is?

Let’s not divert this whole thread into an attempt to derive a moral system from first principles in the limited format of a bulletin board. This is a topic best covered in a book, or at least in a chapter or three of a book.

Not that long ago I came across a book that covered a formal proof of the golden rule. If that would be close enough for you I can try to dig up the title.

There cannot be any objective formal proof of the golden rule, because the golden rule is a matter of value. You need a value-laden premise to get a value-laden conclusion, and that value-laden premise has to come from somewhere. For me, the premise starts with a loving God who made mankind in its image. I can think of no other reason than that to suppose that all human beings are equally valuable, or worth treating like I want to be treated.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, clarification: The male-male black swans have sex. I make no assertion as to whether or not it is for pleasure.

Fair enough.

So what is your point? Is it that animals do things therefore we should do them too?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Dr. Taffy,

Is the goal of welfare to promote the well-being of the poor?

(It will become clear in a moment why I am asking.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Fair enough.

So what is your point? Is it that animals do things therefore we should do them too?

No, that can’t be it. In that case, the fact that male swans have sex with male swans would mean that I should have sex with a male swan, too.

 

[PRmerger]

So if some Brits turned up in your town and formed a football team, would you be demanding that they instead call it by your term, or that they play by your rules? Even if they showed you the historical evidence of ‘football’ being used to describe their game?

Interesting, this question.

It is so obscure, given the fact that the terms are not defined, that we can’t make any judgement about this.

“If some Brits turned up in town and formed a football team” means nothing.

We don’t know, at all, what kind of team this is.

 

[stewstew03]

So you are demonstrating the Catholic approach to meaningful dialogue by calling me a troll and posting an insulting image? :ehh:

Rather than, for example, engaging in any of the meaningful points that I made to you, for the second time, in that same article, and that I now present for the third time:

How can you claim that marriage is ‘for’ the State to promote conception, when it does no such thing? Marriage is neither necessary for nor even helpful for conception. Indeed, marriage can only prevent conception, as when someone who is both willing and able to have children ends up married for life to someone who is either unwilling or unable.

Further, if promoting conception were the purpose for marriage, why would the State give marriage licenses to those who had not conceived, nor made any commitment to do so? The obvious thing would be to grant the rights only to those who had already conceived.

Finally, if promoting conception were the purpose for marriage, same sex couples who had conceived would be more worthy of marriage licenses than childless heterosexual couples. The State, after all, doesn’t care about the child’s genes, as long as they are being adequately cared for. So a couple who have produced kids (and are raising kids, which is where marriage does help) should have the same marriage rights whatever their gender.

Oops, missed one. So really and truly Finally this time, can you explain why the definition of marriage must exclude all forms of marriage that you oppose, whereas the same is not true for the definition of ‘Sex’. Or to look at it another way, why does admitting that polygamous marriages were in fact marriages imply support for polygamy?

Good grief, this is the problem - I’ve already addressed your points, but clearly your ideology has clouded your reading comprehension. Go back and re-read my posts (hint: I never said the state should promote conception).

 

[stewstew03]

Ok, clarification: The male-male black swans have sex. I make no assertion as to whether or not it is for pleasure. But what other reason do you suggest they have? Baiting Catholics?

stewstew03 did assert that they do not “engage in sexual activity for pleasure”, so maybe he could answer how he knows that?

Perhaps because there is no evidence that they do…?

 

[PRmerger]

stewstew03 did assert that they do not “engage in sexual activity for pleasure”, so maybe he could answer how he knows that?

We are simply taking the atheistic position here: we profess that we won’t believe they do this, until there is evidence that they do.

Are you opposed to this type of paradigm, DrT?

 

[PRmerger]

No, that can’t be it. In that case, the fact that male swans have sex with male swans would mean that I should have sex with a male swan, too.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps because there is no evidence that they do…?

Interestingly enough, this doesn’t seem to stop some atheists from believing in things, even without a shred of evidence.

To wit: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11541343#post11541343

Not a single shred of evidence for the existence of this little guy:

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/cb20121105022711/h/halloween/images/3/34/Grey-alien-photo.gif

And yet the possibility of his existence is embraced.

Odd, no?

So perhaps atheists believe animals engage in sex for pleasure, despite there being not a single study (AFAIK) that measured this.

It wouldn’t be outside their paradigm it seems.

Oh, wait. It is outside their paradigm. Sometimes. The possibility that God exists is rejected because…there’s no evidence.

:whacky:

 

[Stephen168]

Yes it does. Try actually reading them, or at least the ones where I included a quote.

As I said, I did read a few. It is clear that in these cultures same sex unions are not treated the same as marriage. They are two different games. A cherry picked quote doesn’t change that.

So if some Brits turned up in your town and formed a football team, would you be demanding that they instead call it by your term, or that they play by your rules? Even if they showed you the historical evidence of ‘football’ being used to describe their game?

Bringing two cultures closer together doesn’t mean they become the same culture. By your silence, I would assume that the Brits have only one game called football.

You seem to be bending over backwards to avoid calling a spade a spade. They are having sex, but it is not a sexual relationship because they are better at raising kids?

They are not having sex. If homosexuality was part of the nature of the Black Swan, we would see female-female pairs. Clearly two male swans provide a safer place to raise their offspring.

Well then, good news everyone! There is evidence that same sex human couples are also better at childraising, ….

That would be good news if it was true, but sadly it is not.

(And I don’t know either way if there are or are not female-female pairs. If the article said anything about lesbian swans it didn’t register with me)

Maybe you should read more than one article.

A) the purpose of marriage is to create, nourish, and educate the next generation.
B) children have a human right to be raised by their biological parents as a matter of justice.

A & B are natural human conditions which reflect human biology and have been part of humanity forever everywhere, and not an inventions of the Catholic Church.
A & B are why sociality/governments care about marriage and not baptism, communion, confirmation, feelings held between room mates, holy orders, or anointing of the sick.