Beards and Gay Marriage

[frobert]

Be careful, frobert.

What you say is bordering on being uncharitable.

It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so it would be a shame for you to be banned.

Clearly, you haven’t thought through your position on homosexuality, and once you are asked to defend it, you can see that it is untenable.

There is no need to be uncharitable in order to discuss.

If I were unable to give “fair response(s)” I would never have been able to make it here as a Forum Elder, with almost 25,000 posts to my name, with nary an infraction or warning from the Moderators.

Stop taking things so personally and learn how to dialogue with people who ask you to support your opinions.

The feeling about being uncharitable is mutual. If you wish to ban me because I speak my mind that is your privilege.

 

[PRmerger]

The feeling about being uncharitable is mutual. If you wish to ban me because I speak my mind that is your privilege.

sigh.

I do hope you are not banned because you sorely need to be here.

As far as people questioning your reasons for your beliefs, please continue to think about why you believe what you believe, and if it is consonant with Truth, and do not leave when you are asked to support your view.

 

[PRmerger]

I must be missing something in how your analogy pertains to a state marriage law.

Use NYS as an example, two years ago the state of NY defined marriage in 36 words composing of 213 characters as follows:

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties’ legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

I.e, what minorities do you believe were left out? Whose equality is being passed over? Does it diminish your choice and right to be married by a Catholic priest in a Catholic Church if you so choose? How does such a law personally effect you?

It affects me because any law that is not grounded in Truth will cause society to crumble.

It’s like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

This fool is parading around buck naked, and thinking that he’s All That. The townspeople are personally affected because the foundation of their rules–their Ruler-- is steeped in stupidity and a lie.

We all want our foundation to be consonant with Truth.

Not a lie.

And the idea that 2 men can have a marriage, or 2 women can have a relationship and call it marriage…

is a lie.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think you are aware of the Windsor case but if not let me refresh your memory. Windsor is the 85-year-old widow challenged the Defense of Marriage Act after her spouse died and leaving her with a tax bill over $300,000. The case was heard in Supreme Court and the Justices ruled on the basis of fairness and equality. (Don’t take my word, look it up). For Ms Windsor fairness gave her the same right to her wife’s her wife’s estate. A married man and woman would not have needed a Supreme Court decision to inherit.

You may argue that Ms. Windsor was already married so the example does not exactly fit you question about a marriage license. So let me give you a personal experience. I hadn’t wanted to do this because after many years it is still quite painful. Before there was such a thing in the US as SS marriage, my partner and I had decided to adopt. We found an agency which was at first open and we went through a six month process that any married couple would normally go through. The last step in the process is a home study which takes a full day and many interviews. We received a glowing report and were waiting for a match. We were asked if we would except 2 brothers from a minority group, a 9 year old and a 12 year old. You can imagine how hard it would be to place such brothers who had a fair amount of problems but we were willing. We were told it was just a matter of the Board approving our application at their monthly meeting, its usually just a rubber stamp. Well the meeting came and went. When we did not hear from the agency for 2 weeks I made several phone calls was given a run-around but finally reached the Social Worker who conducted the home study and was told that regrettably our application was denied because we were not a married. Because we had no marriage license we had no legal recourse in the courts. So when you say fairness is meaningless you can understand my hostility over such ignorance.

I hope the brothers we were ready to adopt were able to overcome the obstacles and found a good home. I am one of the thousands of SS couples who were denied the opportunity to raise a family. Thankfully that is changing because contrary to you belief fairness and equality are meaningful. Every legal case is being won on the issue of fairness and equality. If you truly want information what they stand for look up the individual court cases.

I am asking once again that you examine the NYS marriage license and tell me how that effects you personally.

Personally, I don’t expect a fair response from either you or PRmerger because from what I have read of your posts you are unable to get over the issues you have with civil SS marriage. Hopefully I misjudged you.

It is not clear to me what SSM has to do with either of the examples you brought up.

In the case of the Windsors, what if they were two aging spinster sisters who held monies in joint accounts out of practicality? Would one of them being left with the tax burden of the other be an argument for allowing spinster sisters to be married?

In the case of your adoption, again this is not an argument for SSM precisely because even individuals are allowed to adopt. If it were two mature brothers or sisters who wanted to adopt the nine and twelve year old boys, would the adoption agency likewise turn them down?

In both cases, I see no logical connection from these to “therefore the definition of marriage should be rewritten.”

Perhaps tax laws need revision. Perhaps adoption rules need to be revised. But I see no logical motive for redefining marriage, in particular since the revisionist definition is fraught with peril since a redefinition that allows same sex relationships also logically and legally allows a variety of other relationships since the definition cannot exclude them except on arbitrary grounds.

Why, for example, would marriage as a “committed and loving relationship” exclude three or more individuals from being “married?” The existing reason for a pair has to do with the biological connection between the two parents and their progeny. Absent that, there is no logically tenable reason for the exclusion of more than two from “marriage.”

 

[frobert]

It affects me because any law that is not grounded in Truth will cause society to crumble.

It’s like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

This fool is parading around buck naked, and thinking that he’s All That. The townspeople are personally affected because the foundation of their rules–their Ruler-- is steeped in stupidity and a lie.

We all want our foundation to be consonant with Truth.

Not a lie.

And the idea that 2 men can have a marriage, or 2 women can have a relationship and call it marriage…

is a lie.

I expected that is how you would answer. Now examine where your truth comes from. Your ability to reason, your belief maybe something else?

God gave us one gift that we can call our own and the is the ability to reason. Certainly not everyone has perfect reasoning ability and in the history of philosophy and metaphysics there have been many opposing conclusions. The history of the church shows it made numerous mistakes based on the reasoning of the doctors of the Church. Even St Thomas, perhaps the greatest doctor of the church, prior to his death, compared his writings to straw in light of what he claims God had shown him. I am not saying he refuted his writings but it is obvious in the end he didn’t think much of them. So what is Truth? My world view is quite different from yours so my view of the truth is likely different than yours. Your belief in the Roman Catholic tradition has molded your truth just as my belief in my religion has molded mine. The difference between us is I have been taught to respect and even admire your belief and other beliefs other my own. Your truth leads you to what my truth tells me are erroneous conclusions that justify inequality and unfairness.

Let me give you another example. Both the Roman Catholic Church and The Orthodox Church recognize the body and blood of Christ yet each regards the other as heretical. If I were born a Roman Catholic I would likely have an attachment to the Roman church and believe it true and the Orthodox church heretical and vice versa. Which church is the true church? As you say “We all want our foundation to be consonant with Truth.” but only one can be true so which one is it?

What it comes down to is some Catholics, thank God not the majority, feel justified in denying rights to others because of their belief. In fact they believe that the CC demands it of them.

My reasoning tells me that we should lead the best life we are capable of by imitating the goodness of God, drop the sanctimonious and let God be the judge.

Peace

 

[PRmerger]

Let me give you another example. Both the Roman Catholic Church and The Orthodox Church recognize the body and blood of Christ yet each regards the other as heretical.

Actually, this is not correct, frobert.

The CC regards the Orthodox as schismatic. Not heretical.

Huge difference.

 

[PRmerger]

My reasoning tells me that we should lead the best life we are capable of by imitating the goodness of God, drop the sanctimonious and let God be the judge.

Peace

I agree with you, with one huge correction: lead the best life we can that is steeped in Truth.

Otherwise, we may be like that poor fool, The Emperor, who is quite happy leading “the best life” he can.

But he’s parading around buck naked.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What it comes down to is some Catholics, thank God not the majority, feel justified in denying rights to others because of their belief. In fact they believe that the CC demands it of them.

My reasoning tells me that we should lead the best life we are capable of by imitating the goodness of God, drop the sanctimonious and let God be the judge.

Peace

Every law promulgated by every nation state denies ostensible “rights” to some because of beliefs about morality and legality. That is an aspect of human society and governance that is unavoidable.

What you are using here is a smear tactic. You generalize “denial of rights” as if such a thing were universally and always wrong, but do so only where some “Catholics” are concerned. What about governments at all levels? What about you as a parent? Do you allow your children a “right” to drugs and alcohol or deny that “right?”

When “rights” are used as some nebulous and generic quality that is beyond discussion anyone can wield that weapon and assail any individual or group whatsoever.

What are rights? Who ought to be owed which right and for what reason? These are questions that are ignored by those who wish to use “rights” as a cudgel against opponent views.

 

[epan]

I agree with you, with one huge correction: lead the best life we can that is steeped in Truth.

Otherwise, we may be like that poor fool, The Emperor, who is quite happy leading “the best life” he can.

But he’s parading around buck naked.

The problem with the “Natural Law” argument, as you propose it is to assert only one purpose, or end.

A beard may protect the face in cold weather, but may interfere with hygiene in the tropics. The purpose, or telos, of sex may be procreation, or may be intimacy, or may be pleasure. The assignment of one purpose over another may be completely arbitrary.

In the specific example of sex, the “procreative only” view is probably best understood as stemming from an earlier, and perhaps more naive, understanding of human sexuality than is commonly held today.

 

[frobert]

Every law promulgated by every nation state denies ostensible “rights” to some because of beliefs about morality and legality. That is an aspect of human society and governance that is unavoidable.

What you are using here is a smear tactic. You generalize “denial of rights” as if such a thing were universally and always wrong, but do so only where some “Catholics” are concerned. What about governments at all levels? What about you as a parent? Do you allow your children a “right” to drugs and alcohol or deny that “right?”

When “rights” are used as some nebulous and generic quality that is beyond discussion anyone can wield that weapon and assail any individual or group whatsoever.

What are rights? Who ought to be owed which right and for what reason? These are questions that are ignored by those who wish to use “rights” as a cudgel against opponent views.

Indeed. The conversation is about civil rights regarding SS marriage in the US today, I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I was generalizing to something other the SS marriage. You certainly have every right to disagree with how the courts are ruling on SS marriage. I respect your opinion and also the legal decisions of the courts.

Peace Peter

 

[PRmerger]

The problem with the “Natural Law” argument, as you propose it is to assert only one purpose, or end.

A beard may protect the face in cold weather, but may interfere with hygiene in the tropics. The purpose, or telos, of sex may be procreation, or may be intimacy, or may be pleasure. The assignment of one purpose over another may be completely arbitrary.

In the specific example of sex, the “procreative only” view is probably best understood as stemming from an earlier, and perhaps more naive, understanding of human sexuality than is commonly held today.

I don’t think that the CC proposes that there is “only one purpose, or end”. In fact, the CC states that the telos of sex is procreation AND union.

There may not only be one end to the purpose of a beard, but the question is: is it wrong to thwart one of its natural ends, which is to grow?

Just like it is immoral to thwart one of the ends of sex–either procreation or union.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The problem with the “Natural Law” argument, as you propose it is to assert only one purpose, or end.

A beard may protect the face in cold weather, but may interfere with hygiene in the tropics. The purpose, or telos, of sex may be procreation, or may be intimacy, or may be pleasure. The assignment of one purpose over another may be completely arbitrary.

In the specific example of sex, the “procreative only” view is probably best understood as stemming from an earlier, and perhaps more naive, understanding of human sexuality than is commonly held today.

Why is the traditional conjugal or Catholic view reduced to “procreation only?” A more accurate description would be ordered towards all of the above (procreation, intimacy, AND pleasure) to the exclusion of none as a life-affirming telos. You are creating a straw man based upon what you want the Catholic view to be in order to attack it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the specific example of sex, the “procreative only” view is probably best understood as stemming from an earlier, and perhaps more naive, understanding of human sexuality than is commonly held today.

Oh, I don’t know. It seems pretty naive to think that earlier views were naive merely because they were, well, earlier. I think Lewis called this naïveté “chronological snobbery.” Modernism merely flatters one’s snobbery regarding one’s current views.

 

[LJN21]

The problem with the “Natural Law” argument, as you propose it is to assert only one purpose, or end.

A beard may protect the face in cold weather, but may interfere with hygiene in the tropics. The purpose, or telos, of sex may be procreation, or may be intimacy, or may be pleasure. The assignment of one purpose over another may be completely arbitrary.

In the specific example of sex, the “procreative only” view is probably best understood as stemming from an earlier, and perhaps more naive, understanding of human sexuality than is commonly held today.

The very nature of sex is to be procreative AND unitive, its both at the same time and inseparable. So sex is not procreative OR intimate OR pleasurable; its procreative AND intimate AND pleasurable. When every you disorder (make the act about one part and not the others) we call it what it is, disordered. Which is why sodomy, contracption and masterbation are all immoral behaviors, they don’t respect the procreative AND unitive nature of sex. Homosexual “sex” can never be procreative, it is not possible in nature for two human males (or females) to come together and create life together in a sex act.

 

[frobert]

I agree with you, with one huge correction: lead the best life we can that is steeped in Truth.

Otherwise, we may be like that poor fool, The Emperor, who is quite happy leading “the best life” he can.

But he’s parading around buck naked.

How do you arrive at truth? Belief? Reason? something else?

Mine is from my a combination of belief and reason.

The best life I can lead is love God, love my neighbor and do the best I can to imitate God’s goodness. I strive for improvement in all 3.

 

[frobert]

The very nature of sex is to be procreative AND unitive, its both at the same time and inseparable. So sex is not procreative OR intimate OR pleasurable; its procreative AND intimate AND pleasurable. When every you disorder (make the act about one part and not the others) we call it what it is, disordered. Which is why sodomy, contracption and masterbation are all immoral behaviors, they don’t respect the procreative AND unitive nature of sex. Homosexual “sex” can never be procreative, it is not possible in nature for two human males (or females) to come together and create life together in a sex act.

I respect your belief, but that is what it is a belief. There have been many religious ethnicists who have arrived at diffident conclusions through their reasoning of natural law. I am pressed for time now but will be happy to provide references if you would like.

 

[frobert]

Why is the traditional conjugal or Catholic view reduced to “procreation only?” A more accurate description would be ordered towards all of the above (procreation, intimacy, AND pleasure) to the exclusion of none as a life-affirming telos. You are creating a straw man based upon what you want the Catholic view to be in order to attack it.

I will have to examine your arguments when I have more time. But initially, I have no desire or inkling to change the Catholic religion or any religion. I have consistently held a high respect for the Catholic faith even though I do not hold all their claims. Can you say you respect other religions in the same way, if so we are in unison.

 

[SplendidSt]

I’m so confused at the present fact that someone can fight for someone’s “right” to something but yet have no idea what the something they’re fighting for is. It shows the lack of understanding and also the lack of basis for rejecting any other idea.
A: “Lets give everyone the right to {blank}! How dare you take away others’ right to {blank}!”
B: And what is this {blank} you speak of?
A: “Well it’s definitely not your discriminatory version of {blank}!”
B: What is {blank}?
A: “It’s this thing that everyone should have the right to do.”
B: … Please formulate something before you become a champion of “I don’t know what I’m fighting for but everyone should have it” rights.

 

[Stephen168]

I would start my answer with an analogy. During the time of Jim Crow we had laws where only whites could sit at the deli counter, which gave whites some social dignity. To solve this inequity, if one minority group was able to gather support and pass a law declaring black to be white therefore blacks can now sit at the deli counter. We could all smugly declare “deli equality.” This approach makes sense if your goal is social dignity as well as equality.
Of course this approach has it problems. First is that white and black have lost their legal meaning and perhaps their meaning altogether. Second is that we have done nothing for the other non-whites who would also like to be treated equal at the deli, because the legal fiction did nothing for all, just some. We must now create legal fictions for each group.

I think you are aware of the Windsor case but if not let me refresh your memory. Windsor is the 85-year-old widow challenged the Defense of Marriage Act after her spouse died and leaving her with a tax bill over $300,000. The case was heard in Supreme Court and the Justices ruled on the basis of fairness and equality. (Don’t take my word, look it up). For Ms Windsor fairness gave her the same right to her wife’s her wife’s estate. A married man and woman would not have needed a Supreme Court decision to inherit.

Before I continue, the Supreme Court ruled on the basis that she was married in the state of New York, the rest of the majority decision was a rambling irrational mess.

An analogy is comparison between two things for the purpose of explanation or clarification. In my analogy I showed how there are laws on the books which treat people different. In my analogy, I use race in the 1950’s to marital status today.

Only a married person can give all their money tax free to someone else and that someone else can only be their spouse. In the Windsor case a woman had a big tax bill because the Federal government saw Thea Spyer as single and treated her estate just like they would every other single person.
To continue with my analogy: there are two ways to stop people from paying inheritance taxes on money they already paid income tax on while earning it. We change the law so everyone benefits like we changed the laws against racial discrimination in the 1960s or we create a legal fiction and call single people married. As I pointed out in my analogy, by creating a legal fiction you don’t seem to care about all the others left having to pay the tax, who still can’t get married. My single mother cannot leave her estate to my single brother and sister because they can’t get a marriage license. We have to create another legal fiction to help them to avoid paying the tax.

They want what they want and they want it now. They don’t seem to care about other’s dignity or equality, who may share their circumstances, but this would require a thoughtful examination of the law. Something to tedious for someone throwing a tantrum.

what minorities do you believe were left out? Whose equality is being passed over?

As you see the “minorities” “being passed over” are all single people.

Does it diminish your choice and right to be married by a Catholic priest in a Catholic Church if you so choose? How does such a law personally effect you?

People who want to call same sex unions marriage only seem to care about themselves and assume I am the same way, but it isn’t about me, it is about truth and true fairness to everyone.

 

[SplendidSt]

Could someone please for the sake of time and sanity present a definition of marriage that is “non discriminatory”? Cause I’m not convinced such a definition exists. Please enlighten me.