D
DrTaffy
Guest
I gave it. You ignored it.
What is your definition?
That nowhere mentions sucking hammers.
- Status
What is your definition?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Where?
D
DrTaffy
Guest
So the argument about how “it is not the one correct use of the mouth” is irrelevant, and you should put it to bed, as P_S says, and concentrate on these other, presumably more substantive, considerations. No?:ehh:
But gay couples can and do procreate, so even committed gay relationships do not completely nullify any other use of genitalia. Unlike, for example, lifelong vows of celibacy such as those taken by priests, nuns and monks, which by your logic are immoral.
Religions such as Catholicism might cause “potentially serious issues with regard to human social health” - and unlike homosexual relationships, there actually is some hard evidence that could be taken, legitimately, to support that idea. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire, for example, or this study and those cited by it.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Earlier!
What is your definition?
Give me your final, definitive definition, and I’ll show you mine. quid pro quo ( tip o’ the nib to PR)
Stephen168
New member
Same sex marriage apologists do not define marriage because:
-They want to destroy something and are unable to to provide something in its place; throwing a tantrum
-And as I said in Post #573 they have no rational definition to provide.
-They want to destroy something and are unable to to provide something in its place; throwing a tantrum
-And as I said in Post #573 they have no rational definition to provide.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, no. Priests, nuns and monks are not using their reproductive systems for other purposes. They are merely not using them, fully aware of the ordered reproductive purposes for which they are intended.But gay couples can and do procreate, so even committed gay relationships do not completely nullify any other use of genitalia. Unlike, for example, lifelong vows of celibacy such as those taken by priests, nuns and monks, which by your logic are immoral.
There is no public campaign by priests, nuns and monks to legitimize some “other” intended use of those body organs contrary to reproduction. “Not making use of” is not the same as attempting to undermine legitimate use by displacement.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Or, stated differently, one does not undermine science by doing math, but engaging in pseudoscience does work at undermining science.
Calhoun’s work showed that mice society was eroded to oblivion by the inability of mice to sustain their social roles. The sheer number of pseudo sexual “roles” as listed by Facebook options, for example, effectively undermines social order by eroding away procreative ordering. The result for mice was extinction because once “instilled,” the disordered roles could not be overcome in the affected individuals. Population numbers didn’t just drop and rebound, they plummeted to zero.
What ought to be a lesson to human society seems to not have taken even though Calhoun’s work was once considered an important wake-up call.
F
frobert
Guest
A received a PM from someone I have great respect for. He told me that you are really trying to help me. I gave his remark much thought, the fault is mine in that I am unable to appreciate your way of discourse. I like to get directly to the point. This is just an example and not a criticism. Somehow I gave you the impression that I was denying Catholics the right to argue their beliefs, I would have profoundly apologized for giving that impression because that is the same impression I get of some posters when they fail to be direct. So I have a lot of work to do on myself in trying to understand where the other person is coming from.Egg-zactly.
So you are permitting yourself to say: there are some churches that I cannot in good conscience support.
You will, I presume, now permit Catholics to say the same thing?
With all due respect, if I may apply some psychology here, I think you are misplacing the “gotcha” sentiment. I have no such sentiment in dialogue with you.
What I believe you are feeling is more of a, “Shoot! PRmerger has made a valid point.”
If that makes you feel as if I have said, “Gotcha!” I think that’s a transference of your realization that a logical, reasoned argument has been presented that is incontrovertible.
I would hope that in future dialogues here when someone provides an argument* which makes you go
instead of attacking the presenter of said argument, you simply re-consider and say, “Hmmm…I guess that was a good point that she made.”
*Here I anticipate that you are going to make a comment about how you’re not here to “argue” and provide “arguments”.
So I will pre-empt that and simply say that when we use “arguments” in this context we are not talking about quarreling or arguing. We are using “arguments” in the classic Philosophical sense as being a series of premises which lead to a logical conclusion.
An argument here is not quarreling.
Rather, it is intellectual discourse.
A little tidbit about myself. My home church is the UCC in Miami Beach which I am unable to get to frequently because I no longer live there. My second church is the local Catholic Church which I frequent often. It is a long story but the short version is both churches found me. It’s obvious that I do not share in the identical beliefs of the CC but I respect and even admire those beliefs. My issue is that many Christians, I should say religious people do not feel others should have different beliefs than theirs’ so there is no need to respect other beliefs.
Again I apologize for misjudging you.
Peace
F
frobert
Guest
Steven,
Allow me to present a definition of marriage that is NOT from SS marriage apologists.
Background:
We recognize and affirm that the covenantal values that are essential to the Gospel are central to how we understand marriage in this time. We also recognize and affirm that all humans are made in the image and likeness of God, including people of all sexual orientations, and God has bestowed upon each one the gift of human sexuality. Further, we recognize and affirm that, as created in God’s image and gifted by God with human sexuality, all people have the right to lead lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent and pleasure.
Formation of the definition:
The overriding message of the Gospel is that God calls God’s people to live fully the gift of love in responsible, faithful, just, committed, covenantal relationships of trust that recognize and respect the image of God in all people. These Gospel values are at the core of the covenantal relationship that we call marriage.
Source: In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All
Adopted at the Twenty-fifth General Synod of the United Church of Christ on July 4, 2005
You can reasonably argue, from the perspective of the CC and some other religious organizations, that this is not marriage but please realize that it is a Christian definition of marriage from a mainstream Christian denomination.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
But I have given my definition of marriage. Why do you refuse to give yours? After all, these are the Catholic Answers Fora!
Again, what is your definition?
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Amazing. How do they manage urination? Is a catheter fitted immediately upon taking vows?
So their vows do prevent them from using their genitalia for procreation. Whereas same sex relationships do not, and many same sex couples do end up producing children. So the argument that same sex realtionships are immoral because they prevent the procreative use of genitalia is doubly incoherent.
Note that same sex couples do nothing that opposite sex couples cannot do, licitly, according to several apparently authoritative sources here on CAF.
And Catholics do, indeed, demand state recognition of the unique status of priests, nuns and monks, hence the reason that they are permitted to explicitly discriminate against protected classes. A privilege that Catholics are arguably abusing by trying to use it to justify discrimination in hiring or firing teachers at Catholic schools.
F
frobert
Guest
DrTaffy,
I think it is safe to assume that Stephen168’s definition is that of the CC. I don’t know why he refuse to say so directly but vagueness and avoidance appear to be part of his modus of operandi, his game so to speak which he is entitled to.
Stephen168
New member
Stephen168
New member
First, You spelled my name wrong.
Second, In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All was written by a same sex marriage apologetics group. It does not contain a definition of marriage as I would expect. It does contain what I would call the material cause of marriage, which would be like defining a house as a thing made of wood. While a house may be built of wood the definition is meaningless.
When you define something too broad you don’t have a definition because it is meaningless as DrTaffy helped me prove in post #486.
F
frobert
Guest
“It does not contain a definition of marriage as I would expect.” Exactly it is your perception and expectation which I can respect but you are unable to reciprocate. DrTaffy nor myself want to change your belief which I can sympathize with, My perception coincides with my church, the UCC, I don’t believe there there are many in my church that would characterize the 25th General Synod as a “sex marriage apologetics group or that it was controlled by one. or who find the definition meaningless.” The impression I get of what you are saying is “any definition of marriage or belief different than Stephen’s must by definition be wrong and it is ok for Stephen to characterize such a definition as meaningless.” Believing that is ok by me, but in reality it is meaningful to myself and many others.
Stephen168
New member
*In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All *was written by a same sex marriage apologetics group and approved by the UCC.
Things have a purpose, and they are created of stuff. My expectation would be that a definition would include all of that. You, the UCC, and same-sex marriage apologists are willing to accept a list of stuff as a definition.
While you might be satisfied defining a house as a thing made of wood, it does not rule out chairs, toy boxes, tables, trees, porches, etc. Therefore the definition is meaningless as DrTaffy helped me prove in post #486. So I don’t find it meaningful.
A couple of tangents:
How is it that you list Catholic in your profile and then claim the UCC as your church?
After reading *In Support of Equal Marriage Rights for All *, it is clear the UCC Coalition had to reject the bible to come to accepting same sex unions as marriage.
F
frobert
Guest
Catholic is my birth religion and at the time I joined CAF I was attending a CC which I frequently attend due to my home church being in Miami Beach and the nearest UCC church is difficult for me to get to. I have had several meaningful conversations with the Pastor who is aware of my orientation and beliefs. I was a regular member of UCC several years prior to the 25th Synod and several years after.
I see hope for you in that you admit it is Stephen that does not find the UCC definition meaningful and is not making the mistake of generalizing to others.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
No, I gave a definition long before post #525.
You are still refusing to give your definition.
So, what is your definition?
Show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
Stephen168
New member
Yes, it is me that finds the UCC Coalition definition meaningless, and with each post I included a reason.
And the summary of each of your responses was, I beg to differ. Which it seems is also a good summary of the position held by most same sex as marriage apologists. They offer nothing, they just beg to differ.
S
stewstew03
Guest
This is laughable. You didn’t cite a “study” – you cited an essay written by an atheist professor with an agenda.…
Religions such as Catholicism might cause “potentially serious issues with regard to human social health” - and unlike homosexual relationships, there actually is some hard evidence that could be taken, legitimately, to support that idea. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire, for example, or this study and those cited by it.
…
Here - take some advice from this same professor: pointers for fellow atheists.
- Status