Beards and Gay Marriage

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks for the comment, it is pleasant to recall my early experiences with Rumi.

Point is he has nothing to do with Catholic-Christian teaching. “namely that the religion believes in the goodness of God.” To him Jesus Christ isn’t God.

Thanks.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t recall saying that the anus has multiple functions but I think Freud wrote quite a lot on erogenous zones. Not that I necessarily agree with him.

You said; “a body organ can have multiple purposes”. So then you don’t agree "is a silly reason to oppose gay marriage or you do?

 

[DrTaffy]

You said; “a body organ can have multiple purposes”. So then you don’t agree "is a silly reason to oppose gay marriage or you do?

How many functions do you think the penis has?

How about the mouth?

Just one in each case? What function, in that case?

Must each use of that organ employ every potential function?

 

[Peter_Plato]

How many functions do you think the penis has?

How about the mouth?

Just one in each case? What function, in that case?

Must each use of that organ employ every potential function?

So your argument is that body organs have, by nature, multiple functions, therefore every imaginable function is allowable.

I have a multifunction printer, therefore it ought to also function as an anvil?

So, the penis has several functions, what conclusion can be drawn from that little tidbit?

 

[frobert]

You said; “a body organ can have multiple purposes”. So then you don’t agree "is a silly reason to oppose gay marriage or you do?

You appear to be reading intentions in my post that I did not have in mind when I wrote the comment.

One’s stand on SS marriage for most people is likely not a one horse show rather it is arrived at from many influences. The most prevalent in my mind are fairness and equality not body organs or functions.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So your argument is that body organs have, by nature, multiple functions, therefore every imaginable function is allowable.

I have a multifunction printer, therefore it ought to also function as an anvil?

So, the penis has several functions, what conclusion can be drawn from that little tidbit?

To be fair, I think DrTaffy’s point is simply that one argument against the moral permissibility of gay sex – the argument that the penis, e.g., only has one function – is clearly flawed. I agree with DrTaffy on this point.

There are plenty of bad arguments for most true moral claims.

 

[frobert]

Point is he has nothing to do with Catholic-Christian teaching. “namely that the religion believes in the goodness of God.” To him Jesus Christ isn’t God.

Thanks.

If I am inspired to follow Christ’s teachings what difference does it matter who inspired me or if he were Christian or not?

 

[PRmerger]

I misread your post at first. I was simply pointing out that you and myself and most people use their attachments to decide who and where they worship. I don’t reserve any such right.

Well, it certainly sounded as if you were objecting to that paradigm.

These are your words, right?

You are limiting your respect of other religions to the ones that coincide to your own attachments.

I see now that what you meant in the above statement is that “You and I and most people” do this.

Why should I disrespect a church simply because I do not agree with one or more of their doctrines? I may not wish to be a member of such a church but I harbor no disrespect.

Fair enough.

So, just to be clear: you respect the Westboro Baptist Church, whose main doctrine is that God HATES homosexuals.

Yes?

Do you disrespect the United church of Christ or other churches that are more open to SS couples?

As I already said: where any church professes truths that are consonant with the Truth, I say .

Thus, when the UCC says that Scripture is the Word of God, I say
When a church says that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity, I say

When a church says that Jesus did not die for atheists, I say: not so much.
When a church says that homosexuality is not inherently disordered, I say: not so much.

So I respect them when they profess Truth. Not when they profess lies.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You appear to be reading intentions in my post that I did not have in mind when I wrote the comment.

One’s stand on SS marriage for most people is likely not a one horse show rather it is arrived at from many influences. The most prevalent in my mind are fairness and equality not body organs or functions.

Sorry, I’m not reading anything into your quotes, merely inquiring what you mean by your exact words, I don’t know, thus the question. For example I’m just attempting to understand how you quantify these statements, such as: “for most people is likely not a one horse show rather it is arrived at from many influences.”

Who are most people? What percentage? And of them who believes it is or isn’t a one horse show?

So is fairness and equality for example you mean Catholics should be allowed to practice there faith as they choose without persecution? They have equal rights too, or no?

So as long as they have equal rights in whatever regard to “body organs or functions” your OK with that, or no?

You said here…

I don’t recall saying that the anus has multiple functions

But you said here…

Right, a body organ can have multiple purposes.

I’m rather confused by what your saying.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If I am inspired to follow Christ’s teachings what difference does it matter who inspired me or if he were Christian or not?

Oh so he inspired you to follow Jesus Christ. Thats what I’m asking, I don’t see how? Hey you bought up Rumi. I figured it must be something you want to share with us?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You appear to be reading intentions in my post that I did not have in mind when I wrote the comment.

One’s stand on SS marriage for most people is likely not a one horse show rather it is arrived at from many influences. The most prevalent in my mind are fairness and equality not body organs or functions.

Yes, but fairness and equality are determinable only when the “good” in question is unjustly deprived to those whom it is owed. There are, therefore, two questions to be asked:

1. Is homosexual sex a “good” owed by society to individuals?
2. Is the redefinition of current marriage laws the appropriate means to rectify the alleged injustice?

Question 1) gets at the fact that it might be unjust to deprive homosexuals of certain forms of pleasure seeking, but that does not mean society owes homosexuals the supportive means or outright endorsement of those means by which to fulfill their desires.

Question 2) is another matter altogether, but the question depends on the determination in Question 1), which is far from being a settled matter.

The fact that the argument for SSM conflates a number of issues into outright and positive educational and legal endorsement of said behaviour means blindness concerning these questions (and possibly others) has been driving the social agenda or, at least, allowing it to “take” with the public.

There has been something truly subversive regarding ethical thinking that has occurred in modern western cultures over the past 20 years. It behooves all of us to continue to raise questions and engage others in overcoming unsound or downright negligent ethical thinking and policy making.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To be fair, I think DrTaffy’s point is simply that one argument against the moral permissibility of gay sex – the argument that the penis, e.g., only has one function – is clearly flawed. I agree with DrTaffy on this point.

There are plenty of bad arguments for most true moral claims.

Point taken.

However, let’s be clear that multiple functions of bodily organs does not serve, at all, as an argument for gay sex or, by extension, the need for a redefinition of marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Point taken.

However, let’s be clear that multiple functions of bodily organs does not serve, at all, as an argument for gay sex or, by extension, the need for a redefinition of marriage.

Agreed. You cannot argue that it is permissible to let people use your arm as a chew toy on the basis that arms have multiple uses.

Circumstantially, I wonder if the pro-gay-marriage folks in this conversation think it would be OK for me to let people use my arm as a chew toy. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Your second point first: I agree that our understanding of goodness may not be that of God’s. There is a saying that the map is not the territory. It is in this sense that goodness is my map to God. If I reason and believe that God is all goodness then for me the will of God is that we do our best to imitate his goodness. I need a map to do that.

I absolutely agree that you need a map to do that. The question is: what map?

When I use my own standard of goodness to understand the world, I end up “living in my head”, so to speak. How can my standard of goodness ever change, if I always judge other people’s standards to be wrong on the basis of my own standard? If I say, “The Bible is flawed because it doesn’t agree with my idea of goodness”, am I not setting myself up as the ultimate arbiter? This is worrying.

I have found that I need to dig very deeply into Biblical viewpoints before evaluating them. My impulse to throw them out immediately because they violate my idea of goodness must be resisted. At the same time, I should not mindlessly agree with everything the Bible says. I grow as a Christian by WRESTLING with the Bible, by wrestling with God.

On your first point, I agree that Catholic doctrine tells us that sodomy is the sin and I believe that sodomy in the OT referred to all non-marital sex.

Well, I think fornication isn’t always sodomy, since fornication can involve life-giving intercourse. But it IS common for straight married couples to commit sodomy. Sodomy simply takes place whenever a sex act is not properly ordered to procreation. The idea that gay people commit sodomy and straight people don’t is completely bizarre and non-Christian.

I appreciate your last comment. I was blown away by it and I am speechless that you would think that of me. Thank you.

Well, gosh.

 

[frobert]

Oh so he inspired you to follow Jesus Christ. Thats what I’m asking, I don’t see how? Hey you bought up Rumi. I figured it must be something you want to share with us?

Kind of. I already had an attachment to Christianity through birth and inherent affinity to paradox. I have had received inspiration from many places and many people. Rumi was my first love among my teachers.

The miracle of Jesus is himself, not what he said or did
about the future. Forget the future.
I’d worship someone who could do that.RIGHT[/RIGHT]

I envisioned the womb of Virgin Mary as the universe completely engulfed by raging fires.
Searching deeper through burning flames, I discovered a whole new world.
Bit by bit and step by step,
as I finally made my way to the very heart of those raging fires,
I looked…and looked…and kept looking…
then I saw my sweet-breathed Jesus.

Rumi​

I wonder how many Catholics and other Christians are aware that Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Rumi describes the virgin birth in such splendor and passion. I feel the flames all about myself, I feel the longing for Jesus, I can almost smell him. What’s not to love?

Thank you for the suggestion to share.

 

[frobert]

Yes, but fairness and equality are determinable only when the “good” in question is unjustly deprived to those whom it is owed. There are, therefore, two questions to be asked:

1. Is homosexual sex a “good” owed by society to individuals?
2. Is the redefinition of current marriage laws the appropriate means to rectify the alleged injustice?

Peter,

You are defining fairness and equality at an intellectual level. A sociologist may be a more appropriate person to discuss it with at that level.

I see you read my post on my own personal experiences. That is how I describe fairness and equality. Selfish? Yes it is, but millions of others both gay and straight share my view You don’t. I am not here trying to change anyone’s opinion but only to share and learn. You are entitled to your world view please give me the same respect.

Thank you commenting, sorry I am unable to answer your questions to your satisfaction.

Peace.

 

[davidv]

Peter,

You are defining fairness and equality at an intellectual level. A sociologist may be a more appropriate person to discuss it with at that level.

I see you read my post on my own personal experiences. That is how I describe fairness and equality. Selfish? Yes it is, but millions of others both gay and straight share my view You don’t. I am not here trying to change anyone’s opinion but only to share and learn. You are entitled to your world view please give me the same respect.

Thank you commenting, sorry I am unable to answer your questions to your satisfaction.

Peace.

Why should we not be concerned if yours, any any others, world view will lead to unhappiness? I reject relativism. It is incoherrent.

 

[frobert]

So, just to be clear: you respect the Westboro Baptist Church, whose main doctrine is that God HATES homosexuals.

Before I knew nothing about Wesboro. I can not in good conscious support them because their claim that God hates homosexuals flies in the face of the vast majority of Christian churches including the CC whose teachings hold otherwise.

PRmerger,

I think you are probably a nice guy and I apologize about being a bit out of line the other day. However, I still get the impression that you are look for the “gotcha” moment. I would rather deal with you on a honest basis. I love to share and I love to be challenged when it serves a purpose but I honestly don’t see a purpose to your questions.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12069244:

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.

This from the guy who was quite happy to repeatedly call me “delusional” in this thread? Compared to that, what is insulting about pointing out that you are indeed using “in nature” to mean something other than its literal meaning? Despite many requests that you clarify whether or not you meant that literally or in some more figurative sense?

Qualia. That’s what I mean.

But as I pointed out, while there is a common demoninator to various historical uses of ‘marriage’ that we would recognise in other cultures, we find that same common denominator in same sex marriage today (and the past) - which is one of the reasons that various christians objected to ‘civil partnerships’ here in the UK: they were instantly recognisable as ‘same sex marriage’ under a different name.

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.

The bad news is that you can have a square with four equal sides and four equal (internal) 75 degree angles, in non Euclidean space.

Still, you can have a definition of “square” that holds true in all spaces, just as you can have a definition of “marriage” that applies to all historical uses of that term. Again, the bad news is that that definition of “marriage” cannot exclude same sex couples as ‘marriage’ has been used historically to refer to them.

I assume you want to understand my view.

On this topic. I do not want to hijack this thread into sterile discussions of abstract philosophy.

Really? You think there is ONE internal representation that all English speakers share when they use the word “marriage”?

I think that there is a common denominator to all the uses of ‘marriage’. Assuming that by ‘all’ we can be sensible and exclude the asylum inmate who thinks that ‘marriage’ refers to the small furry entities who whisper stories of hatred and bloodshed into his ears at night.

If you do not, then what did you mean by there being one thing “in nature” that we call ‘marriage’?

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.

But that does not even come close to covering all the uses of ‘marriage’ even in the Bible - so you are explicitly trying to narrow down the definition to your own more restrictive version.

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.

Nonsense. Same sex couples are as flourishing and happy as heterosexual couples - as many studies have shown. For example the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families found that:

On measures of general health and family cohesion children aged 5 to 17 years with same-sex attracted parents showed a significantly better score when compared to Australian children from all backgrounds and family contexts. For all other health measures there were no statistically significant differences.

 

[DrTaffy]

So your argument is that body organs have, by nature, multiple functions, therefore every imaginable function is allowable.

Where did I say that?

Answer: nowhere, you are trying to put words into my mouth.

However, let’s be clear that multiple functions of bodily organs does not serve, at all, as an argument for gay sex or, by extension, the need for a redefinition of marriage.

Multiple functions for body parts invalidates the naive and simplistic ‘natural law’ argument that just because you have identified one use for a body part, any other use is therefore ‘disordered’.

For example, how many uses are there for the mouth:
eating
drinking
breathing
speaking
tasting (even when not eating the thing being tasted)
feeling the shape or texture of something
blowing or sucking
holding something
visual gestures such as smiling or snarling
tactile gestures such as kissing
biting, offensive or defensive or in order to shape something
spitting (ever seen a camel take out a fly?)
…and so on.

Given such a plethora of uses, how can a similair naive ‘natural law’ argument hold that oral sex is wrong because it is not the one correct use of the mouth?