Beards and Gay Marriage

[DrTaffy]

Perhaps because there is no evidence that they do…?

So there you go, PR. His(?) evidence is simply the lack of evidence either way.

But, stewstew, was the alleged absence of doing it for pleasure the point of your post? How is it relevant? What other motivation do you suggest, other than taunting the Catholics?

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?

Not particularly - although I would draw a distinction between ‘not believing X’ and ‘asserting not-X’

So, you accept this paradigm, and agree that not believing in (e.g.) God until we have proof of God is a good idea?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

No, I objected to the use of subjective arguments to impose restrictions on others, and you responded by objecting to the idea that religious arguments were subjective. Since the terms of the original proposition were set by me, if anyone is confusing ‘arguments’ with ‘conclusions’ it is you.

Please quote to me the post where I said the portion you underlined.

OK, if I understand what you are saying then you are veering even further away from the topic of this thread, and indeed seem to be accelerating hard towards the philosphical event horizon of sollipsism.

Do you really not see the difference between insisting that noone be allowed to do X because your personal beliefs forbid it, and insisting that noone be allowed to do X because of the following arguments and evidence that everyone can accept and agreee on?

I do not think gay sex is wrong because a book forbids it, or because God forbids it. My personal beliefs are based on evidence available to everyone. Look for a single quotation where I relied on some sort of private evidence – you won’t find it. As to whether everyone “agrees to” the evidence, surely that doesn’t matter very much. A proposition might be supported by evidence even if people (for various reasons) choose not to assent to the proposition.

Then why do you need to inject your religious beliefs into any debate, given that you know that many of your interlocutors will not share those beliefs?

What religious belief did I interject into the conversation? Not that this would be a problem – so long as these religious beliefs were supported by evidence available to everyone.

Also, how do you defend beliefs such as the perpetual virginity of Mary without recourse to invoking your religious beliefs?

I didn’t know we were talking about the virgin, who neither had a beard nor a gay marriage (except in the traditional sense of “gay”).

Obviously the belief in Mary’s virginity relies on other religious beliefs. So long as these other beliefs are justified, their justification would carry over to provide evidence for Mary’s virginity. At some point down the line, there would be some justified belief that provided the foundation for all religious knowledge: for example, that God exists, and God is good.

So you are entirely unaware of formal proofs of the golden rule? Or you reject them for some objective reason?

What are the premises to these proofs? They would clearly involve an assumption that all people are equally valuable – a premise that cannot be justified by any argument without a religious or metaphysical premise.

 

[DrTaffy]

As I said, I did read a few.

Clearly you did not, as all of those quotes reference cultures in which explicit same-sex marriage is reported. As in the quote I gave.

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.

It is better than a blank assertion with no quote whatsoever.

And how many examples do you think are needed to establish that not all cultures have defined ‘marriage’ as being between one man and one woman?

By your silence, I would assume that the Brits have only one game called football.

As often happens when making assumptions on the absence of evidence, you are wrong. We have what we call ‘american’ football as well as normal football. just as we have no problem with accepting that triangles and squares are both polygons. Or that rape and incest are ‘sex’, even if they are immoral varieties of sex.

So why do you feel the need to redefine ‘marriage’ to exclude same sex marriage? Why can you not just say that you disagree with same sex marriage and give a reasoned argument as to why it is wrong, in your opinion?

They are not having sex. If homosexuality was part of the nature of the Black Swan, we would see female-female pairs.

Of course they are having sex. Not only do we not know that there are no female-female pairs, but why is a species with gay males but no lesbians somehow impossible in your view?

 

[Stephen168]

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.
Prodigal_Son;12019072:

Um, why does the “nature” of the black swan matter? Two points:
(1) All nature is fallen. So we shouldn’t expect animals to be saints, and we don’t observe that they are.
(2) Catholic teaching does not forbid male swans from cavorting with other male swans. Nor does Catholic teaching insist that it is harmful for male swans to do so.

I’m not sure if you disagree with what I said or are expanding on what I said, but I agree with what you said. My point is that Black Swans have a nature, it is not human nature. Animals cannot be saints or sinners, they just are. They do what they do to minimize their chances of extinction. Behavior that helps a Black Swan doesn’t necessarily help a human. And ultimately homosexual behavior is contrary to design and does not minimize the chances of extinction.

 

[PRmerger]

So, you accept this paradigm, and agree that not believing in (e.g.) God until we have proof of God is a good idea?

Yes, DrT. I don’t advocate believing in anything without proof.

What I find amusing is when atheists believe in something (like aliens, or the multiverse) without a shred of evidence.

That does indeed make me snicker.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

They do what they do to minimize their chances of extinction.

At the very least, they follow instincts.

Behavior that helps a Black Swan doesn’t necessarily help a human. And ultimately homosexual behavior is contrary to design and does not minimize the chances of extinction.

(1) To figure out whether homosexual behavior is contrary to the design of black swans, we would need to figure out what the nature of a black swan is, and what constitutes an “excellent” black swan. I have no idea how to do that, so I make no teleological claims about black swans.

(2) Evolution has no moral implications. It is not wrong to thwart evolution – e.g. it is not wrong for the most talented and strongest person in the world to become a priest.

 

[Stephen168]

At the very least, they follow instincts.

(1) To figure out whether homosexual behavior is contrary to the design of black swans, we would need to figure out what the nature of a black swan is, and what constitutes an “excellent” black swan. I have no idea how to do that, so I make no teleological claims about black swans.

(2) Evolution has no moral implications. It is not wrong to thwart evolution – e.g. it is not wrong for the most talented and strongest person in the world to become a priest.

So we agree

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So we agree

 

[Stephen168]

It seems to me that you have, above, essentially conceded the argument against calling same sex liaisons “marriage” in the same sense that conjugal marriages are, just as you would have to agree that “football” in Europe refers to a fundamentally different game than the one played in the US or Canada, despite the shared name.

Merely because Brits call their game “football” does not ipso facto make their game identical to the game played in the US and Canada. The two games are clearly different regardless of the equivalency of the name.

Merely because the term “marriage” has been or is being used to describe different kinds of relationships does not make all these relationships essentially the same.

It would be a rather senseless move for the townspeople in your example to either:

1. engage in an elaborate pretense that the two games are identical merely because they share the same name, or
2. insist that the rules and play of the two games MUST be blended together, as a result of the shared name, to form a new version of the game such that, henceforth, the word “football” will only refer to one game that encompasses both sets of rules no matter the effect such a merging will have on either game.

It would seem to be a similar boneheaded move to

1a) engage in an elaborate pretense that conjugal marriage and same-sex “marriage” are identical merely by the legal fiat of giving them the shared moniker, or
2a) insist that the name “marriage” be defined as a blending of conjugal and same-sex relationships, such that, henceforth, the term “marriage” will refer to both types regardless of the effects that such a merging will have on either type of relationship.

It would seem that revisionists are committed to one of the two “boneheaded” moves above by insisting that the name used to define a reality actually does define the reality, irrespective of what the reality is.

You summarized my position better than I could

 

[PRmerger]

A) You are being rude again

I did not see any rudeness.

Again, be careful here, DrT. It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

You clearly have never heard some of the well reasoned, incontrovertible arguments that Catholics have presented…

I have noticed that the degree to which you offer ad hominems is the degree to which you cannot refute our arguments. When you get hot under the collar, I know that our logic has made its impact.

So if you are actually willing to dialogue, I think you will learn some things about Truth here and it will be of great benefit to you.

 

[PRmerger]

So there you go, PR. His(?) evidence is simply the lack of evidence either way.

I am a woman.

And I am simply relishing playing the atheist to an atheist.

I won’t believe that swans engage in sex for pleasure until there is evidence for it.

I find great joy in offering the quid pro quo regarding the inconsistency of your atheism.

You believe in things for which there is no evidence (“swans engage in sex for pleasure” “aliens could exist” “the multiverse could exist”), yet, peculiarly won’t entertain the idea that God could exist.

Curious, that!

 

[DrTaffy]

It seems to me that you have, above, essentially conceded the argument against calling same sex liaisons “marriage” in the same sense that conjugal marriages are, just as you would have to agree that “football” in Europe refers to a fundamentally different game than the one played in the US or Canada, despite the shared name.

So despite the shared name you think that using the metaphor of sports (which I did not introduce, BTW) argues against sharing the name?

But no. You are indulging in wishful thinking here.

Noone is arguing that opposite sex marriage is identical to heterosexual marriage - it is far more similar than american and real football, but one is heterosexual and the other is homosexual and noone is arguing that homosexual couples are heterosexual. Nor is anyone arguing that muslim marriage is christian marriage, or that inter-racial marriage is intra-racial marriage.

But they are all marriage.

Likewise incestuous, polygamous, underage or forced marriage is marriage. I am happy to admit that they are ‘marriage’ but that does not prevent me from disagreeing with them.

So why do you feel the need to redefine ‘marriage’ to exclude those marriages that you disagree with? Is justifying your reasons for disagreeing somehow a problem for you?

 

[Stephen168]

So despite the shared name you think that using the metaphor of sports (which I did not introduce, BTW) argues against sharing the name?

Yes, we call different activities by different names.

Noone is arguing that opposite sex marriage is **identical** to heterosexual marriage - it is far more similar than american and real football, but one is heterosexual and the other is homosexual and noone is arguing that homosexual couples are heterosexual.

You are demanding to call two different activities by the same name, which no one does; as you said about football.

Nor is anyone arguing that muslim marriage is christian marriage, or that inter-racial marriage is intra-racial marriage.
But they are all marriage.

Muslims, like people of all races and religions come in both sexes. So yes, religion and race don’t cause a sterile union by design, so they are marriage.

Likewise incestuous, polygamous, underage or forced marriage is marriage. I am happy to admit that they are ‘marriage’ but that does not prevent me from disagreeing with them.

Incestuous marriage is usually taboo because of the children; the reason most cultures are against them. Like same sex unions, underage unions are sterile, so not marriage. Of course underage unions can grow into marriage, which same sex unions never will.

So why do you feel the need to redefine ‘marriage’ to exclude those marriages that you disagree with? Is justifying your reasons for disagreeing somehow a problem for you?

You are wanting to call another activity marriage, which it is not. It is you that is having the irrational tantrum about calling same-sex unions marriage. So to my original question which you could not answer: Why would they want to play another game and call it baseball?

 

[Stephen168]

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.
DrTaffy;12032232:

It is better than a blank assertion with no quote whatsoever.

stewstew03;12016298:

I’ll note that you haven’t actually responded to the claim that the secular justification for the state recognition of marriage is that there is a generative aspect associated with the conjugal union.The state has no interest in recognizing companionships.

…]
The state has an interest in recognizing the companionship between a man and woman who have agreed to live together and plan to build a family. Why is there an interest? Because when a man and woman who are romantically involved live together there is a high likelihood that they will engage in intercourse, which results in the possibility of children. It’s the old adage: “sex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.” I note the conflict between the blue and green text only for irony!

No, cherry picking is worst because as you have shown above. Cherry picking can lead you to claim the opposite conclusion intended by the author.

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

.
DrTaffy;12032232:

As often happens when making assumptions on the absence of evidence, you are wrong. We have what we call** ‘american’ football**

as well as normal football.

Yes, one game called Football and one game called American Football, not two games called Football.

You are wasting your time. Evidence and reason are of no consequence to a recalcitrant revisionist.

From what I pointed out above, I think you are right.

 

[PRmerger]

So despite the shared name you think that using the metaphor of sports (which I did not introduce, BTW) argues against sharing the name?

But no. You are indulging in wishful thinking here.

Noone is arguing that opposite sex marriage is identical to heterosexual marriage - it is far more similar than american and real football, but one is heterosexual and the other is homosexual and noone is arguing that homosexual couples are heterosexual. Nor is anyone arguing that muslim marriage is christian marriage, or that inter-racial marriage is intra-racial marriage.

But they are all marriage.

Likewise incestuous, polygamous, underage or forced marriage is marriage. I am happy to admit that they are ‘marriage’ but that does not prevent me from disagreeing with them.

So why do you feel the need to redefine ‘marriage’ to exclude those marriages that you disagree with? Is justifying your reasons for disagreeing somehow a problem for you?

Since we are back to discusing having the right to re-define marriage, I’d like to re-visit my question to you, DrTaffy.

I am still waiting for your claim that you could explain to someone** why** we call this a circle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Circle_-black_simple.svg/220px-Circle-_black_simple.svg.png

Your claim below:

Then I would show him or her why I call that a circle. I would not just repeat the assertion, as you have done.

*How *would you do that again, without just repeating the assertion?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So are you guys talking about the semantics for the word “marriage” or whether or not to allow homosexual the the privileges and rights that are associated with civil marriage?

In either case would this have an impact on homosexuals engaging in sex? I don’t get the impression that they (or heterosexuals either) are waiting until civil marriage to engage in sexual activities.

 

[PRmerger]

So are you guys talking about the semantics for the word “marriage” or whether or not to allow homosexual the the privileges and rights that are associated with civil marriage?

Both.

In either case would this have an impact on homosexuals engaging in sex? I don’t get the impression that they (or heterosexuals either) are waiting until civil marriage to engage in sexual activities.

It has an impact, TS. Because any society which has no foundation on truth, and permits lies to be propagated (such as: this is a square, and I have the right to call it a square! )
is in deep trouble.

 

[DrTaffy]

So to my original question which you could not answer: Why would they want to play another game and call it baseball?

Try it this way: they are playing the same game, with the same rules, just with different genders. If I form a mixed-sex team, or an all-female team, in a country where ‘baseball’ has traditionally been a male sport, am I not allowed to call the game they play ‘baseball’ suddenly?

 

[PRmerger]

Try it this way: they are playing the same game, with the same rules, just with different genders. If I form a mixed-sex team, or an all-female team, in a country where ‘baseball’ has traditionally been a male sport, am I not allowed to call the game they play ‘baseball’ suddenly?

Not if the way they’re playing is disordered.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Try it this way: they are playing the same game, with the same rules, just with different genders. If I form a mixed-sex team, or an all-female team, in a country where ‘baseball’ has traditionally been a male sport, am I not allowed to call the game they play ‘baseball’ suddenly?

Well, no: for Catholic ethics the gender of the participants doesn’t matter; it’s the equipment that matters. Suppose we were to be playing a game with a ball and a basket, and two teams of five, and try to call that “baseball”. That’s about that same as trying to take a partnership played with two penises and call it “matrimony”.