Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

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”.

Right.

And trying to play back to back, using this to hit the ball,

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

and saying that it’s not about getting to home plate, but rather about just running to first base on one’s tippy toes.

You just can’t call it baseball.

At least, not if you want to be looked at as a rational person.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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?

The equipment being used is part of what is called the reproductive system. Think about that for a minute.

The heart and blood vessels form the circulatory system and lungs the respiratory system. It is these two systems together that transfer oxygen to cells and allow life to go on in reptiles, birds, mammals and adult amphibians.

Funny thing about the reproductive system is that within one individual specimen of most animals, this “system” is not a complete one. It would be like having respiration without circulation or circulation without respiration or having the respiratory system in one individual and the circulatory system in another, requiring the conjoining of the two for life to be sustained. The reproductive “system” in a female requires the complementary “system” of the male to complete its end purpose of, not sustaining, but rather creating a new life - hence re-production. In effect, it is one biological system split between complementary organisms.

The purpose of sex, including the pleasurable aspects, is fundamentally and undeniably to complete the function of reproduction. Like baseball, there are “rules,” “equipment” and “players” involved that make reproduction the game it is. Marriage as a social institution is based entirely upon the fundamental biological reality of reproduction. Without reproduction, marriage as a social custom simply wouldn’t make sense and have no basis for being considered important. The marital relationship is unique and has always been considered unique and indispensable precisely because of its connection to the crucial biological role that reproduction plays.

It is simply nonsensical to claim any use of the reproductive system in human beings is as legitimate as any other merely because pleasant sensations are involved. The reproductive system isn’t a system designed merely for creating pleasant sensations, just as the respiratory and nervous systems weren’t designed merely for getting high on crack cocaine, even though some humans have made that end the sole purpose of neuronal activity.

 

[Stephen168]

This assumes that you and you alone get to dictate what is called ‘baseball’ despite the rest of society disagreeing with you - furthermore you are not just refusing to call

it baseball, you are trying to prevent them from playing at all unless they play your game, by your rules, with who you say.

If you don’t like their game, don’t play and don’t watch. Trying to stop them playing, or trying to ruin their game by heckling, is just selfish and rude.
Stephen168;12010145:

Why would they want to play another game and call it baseball?

So to my original question which you could not answer: Why would they want to play another game and call it baseball?
DrTaffy;12044715:

Try it this way:

Try answering the question instead of trying to change it.

 

[DrTaffy]

Well, no: for Catholic ethics the gender of the participants doesn’t matter; it’s the equipment that matters.

The equipment being used is part of what is called the reproductive system. Think about that for a minute.

So you are reducing marriage to sex. Specifically to one particular sex act. Forget mutual love and respect, forget living life together, raising kids together, supporting eachother in sickness and old age. It is all about putting a penis into a vagina.

And you accuse homosexuals of ‘cheapening’ marriage? :ehh:

Try answering the question instead of trying to change it.

I am answering the question. Same sex couples are not playing a completely different game, they are playing what is instantly recognisable as the same game, just with all-male or all-female teams instead of mixed sex ones. Same sex couples do everything heterosexual couples do with the sole exception of that one sex act, or “conception without external assistance”.

After all, that is why christians still object to ‘civil unions’ - it isn’t the name they object to, it is the reality of same sex couples being treated decently by society.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So you are reducing marriage to sex. Specifically to one particular sex act. Forget mutual love and respect, forget living life together, raising kids together, supporting eachother in sickness and old age. It is all about putting a penis into a vagina.

And you accuse homosexuals of ‘cheapening’ marriage? :ehh:

When did I talk about sex? Do you think that “the equipment” refers exclusively to the way the sex organs are used in intercourse?

Surely not. Men and women’s brains are different, our bodies are different, we are different in a thousand different ways. We are complementary. Penis and vagina are only one example of this, and not the most important example.

 

[Stephen168]

I am answering the question.

No, you’re not.

 

[Stephen168]

After all, that is why christians still object to ‘civil unions’ - it isn’t the name they object to, it is the reality of same sex couples being treated decently by society.

Wrong.

First, you can’t answer the question without changing it. Now you tell me what I believe. All part of your tantrum.

 

[Gorgias]

Wow… I have to admit: having just come across this thread today, I completely thought that a thread on “beards and gay marriage” was going to be about something totally different than the natural function of male facial hair!

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you are reducing marriage to sex. Specifically to one particular sex act. Forget mutual love and respect, forget living life together, raising kids together, supporting eachother in sickness and old age. It is all about putting a penis into a vagina.

And you accuse homosexuals of ‘cheapening’ marriage? :ehh:

This is an interesting accusation, but simply a false one.

That something is a necessary aspect of a greater reality does not imply the greater is reducible to the component.

What marriage is integrally about is two human beings coming together to create new human life. Sex is an integral but not the only aspect of that. It is you who are attempting to cheapen creation of new life by portraying conjugal marriage in reductionistic terms as simply all about putting a penis into a vagina.

Creating new human beings from two existing beings is a profound and awesome thing. The fact that sex is required for that is a fact of nature that takes nothing away from mutual love and respect, life-long commitment, dedication, faithfulness and ongoing support.

That you wish to trivialize life and detract is your problem.

The physical act is integral and necessary for the creation of new human beings. There is no getting past that. It is an aspect of marriage as the physical, psychological, spiritual and emotional union of two complementary human beings.

Yes, my digestive system is necessary for keeping me alive, but my life is not thereby “all about” bowel movements and urination, even though both of those are necessary components of life.

To be consistent, you would need to accuse a physician of “cheapening” life when s/he checks a specimen of your urine to determine the status of your health.

Frankly, I am surprised by the illogic of your post.

 

[DrTaffy]

When did I talk about sex? Do you think that “the equipment” refers exclusively to the way the sex organs are used in intercourse?

Well, given that that was in reply to PeterPlato, not you, I could do a Prodigal_Son right back at you, and ask you where I said that you were talking about sex. But in the interests of constructive debate:
If you assert that you were not, please explain the relevance of:

That’s about that same as trying to take a partnership played with two penises and call it “matrimony”.

What exactly were you suggesting a married gay couple were ‘playing with two penises’ other than sex?

Are you opposed to gay marriage because of the horror of potentially ‘disordered’ methods of writing one’s name in the snow?

Surely not. Men and women’s brains are different, our bodies are different, we are different in a thousand different ways. We are complementary. Penis and vagina are only one example of this, and not the most important example.

Same sex couples also complement eachother. Genitalia are pretty irrelevant to the meaningful parts of such relationships. I would say that the brain is the most important part of that relationship.

On this point, how do you react to the various studies showing that gay men’s brains are in many ways more like those of heterosexual women than men? Are you so sure that you know everything about the neurology of a gay couple, or the extent of their ‘complementarity’, such that you would be justified in preventing them from getting married?

(Yes, I know that you have carefully avoided actually stating your position on gay marriage. Note the conditional tense there. Or even better, pick a side and let us know where you stand)

For that matter, can you answer me what you claim heterosexual couples do, with any part of their ‘equipment’, that same sex couples cannot, and why that matters? If you pick That Sex Act, or “Conception without outside help”, I have already commented on those extensively, so please refer back to those posts.

 

[DrTaffy]

That something is a necessary aspect of a greater reality does not imply the greater is reducible to the component.

But the claim that that one component makes same sex marriage a completely different ‘game’ played by completely different rules does imply that that one component is all you lot care about. Or at least by far and away the most important part.

What marriage is integrally about is two human beings coming together to create new human life.

Yet many marriages are not, by design or accident. Including many held valid by the Catholic Church. “Two human beings coming together to create new family unit” at most.

Creating new human beings from two existing beings is a profound and awesome thing. The fact that sex is required for that is a fact of nature that takes nothing away from mutual love and respect, life-long commitment, dedication, faithfulness and ongoing support.

But same sex couples do create new human beings. With outside help, sure, but many heterosexual couples need that too. And they also have mutual love and respect, life-long commitment, dedication, faithfulness and ongoing support.

So again, what specifically do heterosexual couples do that, in your eyes, justifies special privileges denied to same sex couples? Why should a deliberately childless, possibly even sexless, heterosexual couple be granted support denied to a lesbian couple who have conceived and are raising children?

The physical act is integral and necessary for the creation of new human beings. There is no getting past that.

:ehh:You might want to look into modern reproductive technology. It has advanced a tad in the last 2000 years.

Frankly, I am surprised by the illogic of your post.

Oh come now, be honest. From your past posts I strongly doubt that any perceived illogic on my part would make you even blink!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What exactly were you suggesting a married gay couple were ‘playing with two penises’ other than sex?

Well, I was certainly using the “two penises” comment as a rhetorical tool, which gained its effectiveness in part because its sexual connotations. But the sex organs are symbolic, as well. The personality of a man is different from the personality of a woman; sex differences are real, not imagined. When you put two men together to play tennis, it’s awesome. When you put two men together to build a family, it doesn’t make as much sense.

Are you opposed to gay marriage because of the horror of potentially ‘disordered’ methods of writing one’s name in the snow?

That sounds difficult, unless you have some sort of suspension device. And cold!

Same sex couples also complement eachother. Genitalia are pretty irrelevant to the meaningful parts of such relationships. I would say that the brain is the most important part of that relationship.

What are we – disembodied souls?

Men and women are different, through and through. The complementarity of men and women has been borne out by millions of years of proof. Is this supposed to be overruled by 15 years of (inconclusive, value-laden, and possibly biased) scientific studies?

On this point, how do you react to the various studies showing that gay men’s brains are in many ways more like those of heterosexual women than men? Are you so sure that you know everything about the neurology of a gay couple, or the extent of their ‘complementarity’, such that you would be justified in preventing them from getting married?

The studies you mention don’t prove your point. We know that female brains are complementary with male brains, right? So suppose that gay men’s brains are like female brains. Now consider what happens when two gay men marry. Two female brains unite. Are *these *complementary, in the relevant sense? I see no reason to believe they are.

Now HERE’S a complementary match, if you’re right about gay men’s brains: Have a straight man marry a gay man. Any takers?

(Yes, I know that you have carefully avoided actually stating your position on gay marriage. Note the conditional tense there. Or even better, pick a side and let us know where you stand)

I do not think legalized gay marriage is good for people, but I also do not think it is wise to push against gay marriage at this historical moment (just as I don’t think it is wise to oppose legal contraception). If I had a vote, I would vote against it. But I think most opposition to gay marriage is simply spinning our wheels, so to speak – and some of it is, sadly, based on mere homophobia.

For that matter, can you answer me what you claim heterosexual couples do, with any part of their ‘equipment’, that same sex couples cannot, and why that matters? If you pick That Sex Act, or “Conception without outside help”, I have already commented on those extensively, so please refer back to those posts.

Even if you proved that faithful Catholic married couples don’t do anything other than what gay couples do – and you can’t prove that – you wouldn’t show that gay marriage is the same as the sacrament of matrimony. Two games might involve the same kind of moves, but be entirely different games. Consider basketball versus the game of “horse”. Is there anything basketball players can do in their game that horse players can’t do in theirs? No. But the games are nevertheless very different.

 

[PRmerger]

From your past posts I strongly doubt that any perceived illogic on my part would make you even blink!

True, this.

 

[Stephen168]

If you don’t like their game, don’t play and don’t watch. Trying to stop them playing, or trying to ruin their game by heckling, is just selfish and rude.

…… they are playing the same game, with the same rules, just with different genders.

Noone is arguing that opposite sex marriage is identical to heterosexual marriage -

Your problem, I think, is that you want the definition of marriage in itself to rule out all those marriages of which you disapprove.

I can, and have, proposed a general definition of marriage that would cover all the meanings of the term in different societies, but that intrinsically does not rule out (for example) incestuous, polygamous, forced, underage or same-sex marriages, as all of those have been current in various civilisations throughout the ages.

We agree, I hope, that incest, rape, child abuse and bestiality are wrong, ……

Exactly - all you can do is bang your fist on the table and demand that everyone use your definition.

They do play two different games and call them both football.
DrTaffy;12032232:

We have what we call ’american’ football

as well as normal football.

But same sex couples do create new human beings.

Oh come now, be honest. From your past posts I strongly doubt that any perceived illogic on my part would make you even blink!

Nope not at all.

 

[Porknpie]

But same sex couples do create new human beings.

this is a biological impossibility. A female can be impregnated from a males sperm but as a couple, two females can not create life together. :nope:

 

[Stephen168]

I was thinking about a guy with a motorcycle who insisted he was driving an automobile. When it is pointed out that it only has two wheels, he responds that “it is steerable, has suspension, transmission, and an engine, WHY are you obsessed with wheels? Automobiles are more than just wheels? Why are you reducing automobiles to wheels?”

It is clear that the motorcyclist is the one reducing automobiles to “just wheels” so that he can attempt to remove it as one of the marks of an automobile.

This leads to the question: why does he insist on calling something an automobile which it clearly is not?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I was thinking about a guy with a motorcycle who insisted he was driving an automobile. When it is pointed out that it only has two wheels, he responds that “it is steerable, has suspension, transmission, and an engine, WHY are you obsessed with wheels? Automobiles are more than just wheels? Why are you reducing automobiles to wheels?”

It is clear that the motorcyclist is the one reducing automobiles to “just wheels” so that he can attempt to remove it as one of the marks of an automobile.

This leads to the question: why does he insist on calling something an automobile which it clearly is not?

I don’t like this comparison at all. Why on earth would someone insist that a motorcycle isn’t an automobile?

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t like this comparison at all. Why on earth would someone insist that a motorcycle isn’t an automobile?

Where I live they are not. Can I assume that where you live the terms have the same meaning?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Where I live they are not. Can I assume that where you live the terms have the same meaning?

Of course the terms don’t have the SAME meaning. But I think all motorcycles are automobiles, just like all SUVs are automobiles. “Auto-mobile”, etymologically, just means “something that moves on its own”.

Moreover, when it comes to marriage, we’re talking about something that has a meaning fixed by nature. So a better comparison would be something like this: if someone said that mushrooms are “trees”. By including mushrooms under the heading “trees”, they would be distorting the meaning of a “tree” and making accurate communication about reality more difficult.

 

[Stephen168]

Of course the terms don’t have the SAME meaning.

That’s right. They are not the same thing. That is why someone would insist they are not the same thing and treat them differently (licensing, parking, etc)

Moreover, when it comes to marriage, we’re talking about something that has a meaning fixed by nature. So a better comparison would be something like this: if someone said that mushrooms are “trees”. By including mushrooms under the heading “trees”, they would be distorting the meaning of a “tree” and making accurate communication about reality more difficult.

And you broaden the definition of tree to plant and a mushroom becomes a tree because it is a plant.

My point is that things are different and to ignore one mark of a thing, you have something else.