Beards and Gay Marriage

[LJN21]

Sometimes one takes precedence over the other. I have no quibbles about how you reason, my point is that others have reasoned otherwise. This where our attachments are usually the determining factor and the fact that some are unable to grasp. I.e how dare you believe something different than what I believe? Or your reasoning lacks merit. I am not attacking your belief system or reasoning ability, just pointing that others have different beliefs and start their reasoning with different assumptions.

Truth is not dependent on belief. If I see a car for the first time and reason because it has locomotion it must be animal, no matter how good my reasoning is for believing it is an animal does not make it so.

 

[davidv]

Sometimes one takes precedence over the other. I have no quibbles about how you reason, my point is that others have reasoned otherwise.

And when these reasonings come to contradictory conclusions, are they both true?

This where our attachments are usually the determining factor and the fact that some are unable to grasp. I.e how dare you believe something different than what I believe? Or your reasoning lacks merit. I am not attacking your belief system or reasoning ability, just pointing that others have different beliefs and start their reasoning with different assumptions.

 

[Stephen168]

When talking with non-philosopher types, I would use the word ‘purpose.’ an arrangement that’s purpose is creating, nourishing and educating children.

The quibble, I think is, if that is the Purpose… then why can the infertile get married since they can’t have kids? They can not fulfill the purpose.

Which is why “ordered toward” seems to make more sense.

Edit: I guess you could argue that to mean adopting or whatever fills that niche. even though, the action that has to be rightly ordered is intercorse and not necessarily the overall goal of the union. Thats a hard one to get across sometimes.

Another quibble is when non-philosopher types eye’s glaze over and they check out of the conversation when they hear the words “ordered toward.” When I use the word ‘purpose’ we can talk about if a broken thing no longer has the purpose for which it was designed and so on and so on.

When two philosopher types are talking I would hope their words would be more exact.

 

[frobert]

I always wonder when people say that what this actually means. Does this mean that you have created your own religion? One that conforms to your own beliefs?

Or do you change your beliefs to conform to what Christ has declared?

If so, what beliefs have you changed that don’t conform to your own personal beliefs, but you changed them because Christ said it’s true?

An example of my own: if it were up to me, and I created my own belief system, I would not say that divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

But, unfortunately, Christ said that it is.

Thus, I have changed my views to what the Church teaches.

I don’t start a different religion and state, “Well! I don’t like that divorce and re-marriage is adultery! Therefore, I profess that God didn’t really say that!”

Now, I am not claiming that anyone has done that here on this thread. I really don’t know.

But it does seem to follow when someone says that she doesn’t believe everything that the Church teaches.

I can say that I respect any religion that proclaims truth that is consonant with the Truth of Catholicism.

Thus, when the Lutheran church teaches the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I say

When the Westboro Baptist Church teaches that God hates homosexuals, I say, “Your religion is absolutely wrong.”

You are limiting your respect of other religions to the ones that coincide to your own attachments. One does not need to believe a religion’s claims to hold respect for the religion. I learned this from at an early age from my love of a great mystic poet who was not Christian but had a great love of Jesus and the holy family. It’s been a long time but a line in one of his poems goes something like this: O lord let me worship in the presence of devout Christians, devout hindus, devout Muslims and Hebrews.That is not it exactly but the idea is there. I am sure there will be some erroneously will want to conflate this with new age. Don’t let me stop you but It couldn’t more different.

 

[DrTaffy]

You seem to misunderstand the relevant terms here. ‘Celibacy’ is the unmarried state; therefore, ‘marriage’ can never imply ‘celibacy’.

That is not the only definition of celibacy, although it is the one that I meant when I referred to homosexuals being forced to lead a life of celibacy. PRMerger’s post only makes sense if you use the full definition.

Here:

cel·i·ba·cy (sl-b-s)
n.

1. Abstinence from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2. The condition of being unmarried.

Your appeal to eunuchs makes it plain that you’re thinking of ‘continence’, or lack of sexual activity.

Rather, suggesting that it makes any kind of sense to talk about me forcing my wife into celibacy makes it clear that PRMerger was thinking about ‘celibacy’ as ‘continence’.

So, whether or not being married to you implies continence is a question only you can answer…

So you would agree that it is offensive to imply that about someone else?

 

[PRmerger]

You are limiting your respect of other religions to the ones that coincide to your own attachments. One does not need to believe a religion’s claims to hold respect for the religion.

So, I must ask:

Do you have respect for this religion?

 

[PRmerger]

O lord let me worship in the presence of devout Christians, devout hindus, devout Muslims and Hebrews.

Would you worship in the presence of devout members of the Westboro Baptist Church?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So you don’t mean ‘in nature’ in the way that any english speaker would understand it.

Your tendency to insult your interlocutor is unkind. I will not say that no one has responded in kind, in this thread, but I have not. Please do not ridicule me.

My usage of “nature” is a long established custom in philosophy of language, perfectly in keeping with an ordinary common use of the word meaning “existing independently of human opinion”. When we say that “the law of gravity exists in nature”, we certainly do not mean that there is an object somewhere that is the law of gravity, nor that the law of gravity is a human custom.

There are several different things that you could mean by ‘blueness’ - e.g. the wavelength, the frequency or the energy of photons reflected or emitted by something. Or the physicochemical properties of something that make this so. Or indeed the internal representation inside your head of how you perceive ‘blueness’. ‘Qualia’, in other words

.

Qualia. That’s what I mean. But perhaps this is muddying the waters, since colors are so complex. Take the shape “square”. This exists in nature, such that one might have a mistaken idea of a square: for example, by thinking that an object with four equal sides and four equal angles might have 75 degree angles. This is what it is, to me, when someone says that marriage (the real thing, not the word) can be a relationship between two women.

More to the point, what has this to do with the topic of this thread?

I assume you want to understand my view.

The most obvious link is the internal represantation. To that extent, sure there is a thing that we all recognise as the thing currently referred to as ‘marriage’, and would probably recognise as such even in a remote amazonian tribe without bridesmaids or penguin suits or wedding cakes.

Really? You think there is ONE internal representation that all English speakers share when they use the word “marriage”? I suggest you rethink that view. If nothing else, it will make it impossible for you to communicate with Christians about marriage.

I am far more inclined to agree with ThinkingSapien’s anthropologist that human ideas about marriage vary wildly – so much so that we can’t tell whether “marriage” is an at all useful word to describe some of these customs.

Great - what is it, and why do you argue that it excludes gay couples? Again, please say clearly what you do mean rather than quibbling about what you do not.

Here’s a rough go at it:

Marriage is a lifegiving committed covenant between a man and a woman who love one another and promise irrevocably to stay sexually and emotionally faithful to one another.

It excludes gay couples by definition. But why is the definition the way it is? Because male/female couplings are the only relationships of this type that contribute to the flourishing/happiness of the people involved. Close friendships between people of the same sex DO help people attain happiness, but the sexual activity and exclusivity of a marriage are not beneficial to same-sex couples.

(This is not an attempt to convince you, but to explain my view. Since our views are miles apart, I don’t expect to be convincing you anytime soon. Moreover, you would have to read a lot of Aristotle, perhaps, before you really understood the moral framework I am coming from).

How can that possible be irrelevant? Especially to my question about how Catholics justify trying to narrow the definition of ‘marriage’?

The English word “marriage” has for hundreds of years been understood to mean a union of male and female. I cannot speak for other words, in other cultures – but in this culture, it is modern people who are trying to broaden the meaning, not Catholics who are trying to narrow it.

Not without a long discussion about what you mean by that, especially as you have claimed that no argument or premise can be objective. Nor do I see how this is relevant to the topic of this thread.

Try this: do you agree that killing innocent babies is wrong?

 

[frobert]

Truth is not dependent on belief. If I see a car for the first time and reason because it has locomotion it must be animal, no matter how good my reasoning is for believing it is an animal does not make it so.

You are right truth is not dependent on belief nor is belief dependent on truth. A religious belief may be true regardless of belief and religions many religions are false regardless of beliefs. How do you determine which one is true and all the others false? Another way of putting it is if your could prove your religion is true what would be the value of faith?

 

[Stephen168]

Nope. There’s no universally applicable answer. Nail down a time and place and I can give you a more specific answer.

Africa, one million BC

 

[frobert]

Would you worship in the presence of devout members of the Westboro Baptist Church?/QUOTE

I know zilch about them. I believe Rumi was writing about religions he knew that had valued the goodness of God so my answer is I would proudly worship with followers of any church that valued the goodness of God. I can anticipate your next question about limiting my respect to an attachment. I admit it I have an attachment to the goodness of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Another way of putting it is if your could prove your religion is true what would be the value of faith?

This is a good question. I’m not sure if it’s relevant to the gay marriage issue, however, since most arguments against gay marriage do not rely on any religious premises.

 

[Stephen168]

A most interesting analysis of single people and people who want to call same sex unions marriage. I would not want to change a word of it.

I think it also shows that same sex “marriage” is not a civil rights issue.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I know zilch about them. I believe Rumi was writing about religions he knew that had valued the goodness of God so my answer is I would proudly worship with followers of any church that valued the goodness of God. I can anticipate your next question about limiting my respect to an attachment. I admit it I have an attachment to the goodness of God.

This is an interesting point. Frobert, out of curiosity, would you agree with the following argument?

1. If Catholicism is true, then gay relationships are not good.
2. Gay relationships are good.
3. Therefore, Catholicism is not true.

Or the related argument…

1. If gay relationships are forbidden by God, then God is not good.
2. God is good.
3. Therefore, gay relationships are not forbidden by God.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

{blank} is whatever the government says it is, whenever they say it. Until there was government, {blank} did not exist.

 

[Stephen168]

Sometimes one takes precedence over the other. I have no quibbles about how you reason, my point is that others have reasoned otherwise.

How did they reason that reproductive organs are not for reproduction?

 

[frobert]

And when these reasonings come to contradictory conclusions, are they both true?

That is known as a dilemma which is quite common and is a good reason to have a trusted spiritual adviser.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hrmm … How about…

“A promise between any number of beings that want to love each others in a committed relationship as long as the individual’s desire.”

Dang it!..the mute…

“Mutual consent between any number of beings that want to love each other in a committed relationship for as long as the individual’s desire.”

The word committed might be problematic, that sounds like we’re talking about exclusivity, what if I want to have a relationship with someone outside the “marriage” too.

Relationship is also problematic, in implies requiring the ability to have relations, even on the most basic level.

The problem with this definition is that you provide no reason that such a “relationship” requires legal teeth. If all that is required is mutual consent and no binding clause, why should this relationship even be considered as a legal one?

Basically, it describes a lasting friendship and nothing more. Since when do friendships require legal teeth? To what end?

Since “love” in your definition is nebulous, the relationship could characterize friendly golf buddies who have a “brotherly” or “sisterly” love and appreciation for each other and are promising to remain committed golf buddies by mutual consent.

Nothing to get legislative, executive or judicial branches of government involved over. Can you provide a compelling reason to put legal teeth behind your definition of “marriage?”

 

[frobert]

How did they reason that reproductive organs are not for reproduction?

I don’t believe I said that if I did I was grossly mistaken.

 

[frobert]

This is an interesting point. Frobert, out of curiosity, would you agree with the following argument?

1. If Catholicism is true, then gay relationships are not good.
2. Gay relationships are good.
3. Therefore, Catholicism is not true.

Or the related argument…

1. If gay relationships are forbidden by God, then God is not good.
2. God is good.
3. Therefore, gay relationships are not forbidden by God.

My college logic is kinda rusty and with my dyslexia I often confuse relationships and need to check my work multiple times so I may be seriously off the mark.

Stated as they are all the above appear to me to be logical statements.

I can not phantom God being bad. I know this sounds stupid or maybe as a cop out but my brain refuses to entertain the thought that God could be other than goodness, even for a moment.