Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[Sair]

Good Lord, even a rudimentary understanding of the development of western civilisation and western Europe is due to the catholic Church. Without one, the other would not have happened and you’d be wearing a burqa.

It would have happened, but it would probably have happened differently. Christianity had the advantage of being adopted by the Roman Empire, which had the resources to turn it into the state religion and impose it upon all the peoples it had conquered. It’s a matter for speculation what might have taken the place of Christianity had it not been given this boon, but it may well have remained the paganism and atheistic philosophical schools that influenced the thought of the Ancient civilisations and which, in their turn, were adopted by Christianity.

You do come off as being dismissive. You make wild assertions, one on top of the other, with no sources to support them.

I merely responded in kind to the post as given, with alternatives to the “Look at what the Catholic faith has done for the world! Isn’t it great!” assertions that were made. Balance was required.

Here’s a prime example; your attempted rebuttal of the development of hospitals by the Catholic Church. Imperial Rome and Greece before her was notorious for its charlatan ‘healers’ and faith in mystic healing. The head of the household was the usual practicioner of ‘medicine’ and Rome was notorious for being pretty fatalistic when it came to diseases and illnesses. Read Medicine in Roman Times. It gets uglier the deeper you delve. By contrast, read History of Nursing - Early Christian Era. It becomes more fascinating the deeper you delve.

I think you’d find, if you actually read what I wrote, that I did not deny that the church was responsible for building and running hospitals. I merely remarked that medical procedures and the activity of actually caring for the sick predated the existence of Christianity, and underwent far more effective development in a non-Christian culture. I have no doubt that medical procedures were incredibly unpleasant in Roman times, but it’s quite interesting that Galen was considered the authority for Western physicians until well into the Renaissance. That being the case, many medical procedures remained not only extremely unpleasant but usually ineffective, even actually harmful, until after the Enlightenment period.

As for your assertion that the achievments of the Church were more important than the faith itself, you have missed the most important aspect of what you wrote.

As have you, if you think that’s actually what I wrote.

It is encapsulated in your use of the word “faith”. It was the “faith” that united the pre-Roman world during the vacuum that existed after the fall of Roman power. It was “faith” that made a retrobate like Ambrose reform his life. It was the “faith” that was the common link between every person in the former Roman Empire. It was the attractiveness of the Christian “faith” that built western civilisation. It is the “inherent truth” that attracted followers, beginning with those who laid down their lives for it.

Again, you misunderstand. Do you actually think the content of the Christian faith itself is what united people, rather than the political, social and economic power of the Church as an institution? There was and is nothing at all in the argument to which my original attempt at rebuttal was made, that actually can demonstrate a clear link between Catholic faith and the prominent achievements listed, as opposed to a link between the power of the Church as an institution and the achievements that were made under its patronage. I have no doubt that Catholic faith has been an inspiration to many; but there is no strength to the claim that in its absence, there would have been nothing to unite people, to inspire people or to provide patronage for study and art or resources for building. As for martyrs, indeed, throughout the Christian era, those laying down their lives have most often been the dissenters from the “one true faith”.

 

[inocente]

Peter Kreeft hasn’t founded a new sect based on his interpretation of the Bible…

Neither have you or I, so that makes three of us. I know you want to go off at a tangent, but you will be taking the trip alone.

My point was that reading the Bible in the Spirit is not alien to Catholicism.

Jesus didn’t treat prostitutes differently from anyone else but that doesn’t mean he condoned their activity…

Strange comparison. Here’s a short list of people who are said to be LBGT, which ones would you claim sell their bodies for money?

W. H. Auden, British poet
Samuel Barber, U.S. composer
Drew Barrymore, actress
Katharine Lee Bates, writer of “America the Beautiful”
Sandra Bernhard, American comedian, singer, author and actor
Leonard Bernstein, U.S. composer and conductor
Mark Bingham, United Airlines flight 93 passenger, victim of 7/11
Paul Bowles, American expatriate author
Benjamin Britten, English composer
William S. Burroughs, American Beat author
John Cage, composer
Truman Capote, American author
Luis Cernuda, Spanish playwright
Graham Chapman, British comedian
Richard Chamberlain, American actor
Montgomery Clift, American actor
Jean Cocteau, French director and artist
Aaron Copland, American composer
Quentin Crisp, British actor and wit
Ellen DeGeneres, writer, comedian and actor
Marlene Dietrich, actress, bisexual
Marcel Duchamp, artist, inventor of the found object
E. M. Forster, British author
Stephen Fry, British actor, comedian, and novelist
Greta Garbo, actress
Federico García Lorca, Spanish poet and playwright
Prince George, Duke of Kent
Allen Ginsberg, Beat poet
Sir Alec Guinness, bisexual actor who was arrested while cottaging in 1948
Nigel Hawthorne, British actor
Rock Hudson, American actor
Jasper Johns, artist
Angelina Jolie, American actress
Janis Joplin, American singer
John Maynard Keynes, British economist, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics
Billie Jean King, tennis player
k.d. lang, Canadian singer
Leonardo da Vinci, Italian Renaissance artist
Liberace, American musician
Madonna, American singer, actress, writer, dancer, producer
Thomas Mann, German author
Ian McKellen, British actor
Freddie Mercury, British musician (Queen)
Martina Navratilova, tennis champion
Rudolf Nureyev, ballet dancer
Rosie O’Donnell, American comedian
Joe Orton, playwright
Hugh Paddick, British actor
Peter Pears, English singer
Plato
Michael Portillo, former UK Defence Secretary
Francis Poulenc, French composer
Gene Robinson, American Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire
Franz Schubert, Austrian composer
Bessie Smith, American blues singer
Gertrude Stein, American expatriate author
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Russian composer
Lily Tomlin, American comedian, actress
Alan Turing, British mathematician, computer scientist and theorist
Gianni Versace, Italian fashion designer
Gore Vidal, American writer
Horace Walpole, 4th Earl of Orford
Andy Warhol, American artist
Oscar Wilde, Irish playwright and bon vivant
Tennessee Williams, American playwright
Walt Whitman, American poet
Virginia Woolf, British author

My point was that I’ve found no reason in the teaching of Jesus to treat homosexuals differently from anyone else.

 

[Sair]

Is sentience your sole criterion of morality?

That seems to be your modus operandi - identify one aspect of an argument and ask whether it is the sole criterion upon which the argument is based.

No, sentience is not the ‘sole’ criterion - there is also the subjective consideration of the feelings of others that requires more than simple sentience in both ourselves and other animals in order to be valid. Many sentient beings lack this consideration.

The fact of the matter is that sentience is required for both the experience of pleasure and the experience of suffering. It astounds me that many of those who claim to be ‘pro-life’ give not a second thought to the suffering of the factory-farmed animals they eat on a regular basis, who are far more capable of suffering than an early-term human foetus; although, having said that, I acknowledge and appreciate that there are people whose general ethos leads them to both a pro-life position and vegetarianism.

I have yet to see anything other than an arbitrary justification for valuing a human embryo over and above sentient beings just because it is human. If it cannot suffer, it is not even a moral patient, let alone a moral agent.

 

[Sair]

John21652,

sw85 is correct; you know nothing about Natural Law. It does not presuppose prior purpose. It takes as self evident certain truths and from them deduces proper ends.

And this is exactly where natural law fails, as I’ve already indicated.

‘Proper’ ends imply, whether you like it or not, prior intention, as if there is only one approved outcome for any given activity humans might undertake. As I said, the ‘proper’ end of rape can be seen to be procreation. Most people who analyse the situation with an open mind can clearly see that the subjective intention attending an instance of rape involves domination, usually because the perpetrator feels disempowered and resentful towards those whom the victim represents - usually women in general, or gay men, in the case of homosexual rape.

Mostly my objection to natural law ethics is its reductionism - I know it must seem extraordinary to you and others who accuse metaphysical naturalism of a reductive approach, but really, that’s what natural law ethics does - it sees some deductively obvious connection between an activity and a result, and assumes that is the only correct employment of that activity; usually it then connects this with the intentions of a higher power.

 

[tonyrey]

Is sentience your sole criterion of morality?

An argumentum ad hominem! And a false deduction from a simple request for clarification…

No, sentience is not the ‘sole’ criterion - there is also the subjective consideration of the feelings of others that requires more than simple sentience in both ourselves and other animals in order to be valid. Many sentient beings lack this consideration.

The subjective consideration of the feelings of others implies belief in the principle of equality. On what do you base this belief?

I have yet to see anything other than an arbitrary justification for valuing a human embryo over and above sentient beings just because it is human.

That argument could be applied to any human being - unless you explain why a human embryo is singled out for exclusion!

Doesn’t it strike you that a **subjective ** consideration of the feelings of others is an arbitrary justification?

If it cannot suffer, it is not even a moral patient, let alone a moral agent.

So sentience is your fundamental criterion of morality?

 

[inocente]

It does not presuppose prior purpose. It takes as self evident certain truths and from them deduces proper ends. The only presupposition Natural Law has is the inherent dignity of man. That is the starting point of Natural Law moral enquiry and formulation.

I’m certainly no expert here, but natural law is the only system of ethics I’ve seen which finds homosexuality disordered, and even then only if procreation is included in the catalog of goods. The main weak point of natural law systems, imho, is that the decision of what to include in the catalog appears somewhat arbitrary, for instance:

The goods that Aquinas mentions in his account include life, procreation, social life, knowledge, and rational conduct. Grisez 1983 includes self-integration, practical reasonableness, authenticity, justice and friendship, religion, life and health, knowledge of truth, appreciation of beauty, and playful activities (pp. 121-122). Finnis 1980 includes life, knowledge, aesthetic appreciation, play, friendship, practical reasonableness, and religion (pp. 86-90). - plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/#CatBasGoo

(Grisez and Finnis are also Catholics).

In each case the issue is that we could argue, neutrally, that the author chose the goods in order to generate his/her required answers! The value of natural law seems more in providing a way of thinking through specific moral cases rather than universally eternal answers, but that’s my view without any relevant qualifications.

 

[Sair]

An argumentum ad hominem! And a false deduction from a simple request for clarification…

Since when does an observation upon your discussion techniques constitute an ad hominem? And it has been my experience that your “simple requests for clarification” are seldom thus, but usually an attempt to set up a reductio ad absurdum.

The subjective consideration of the feelings of others implies belief in the principle of equality. On what do you base this belief?

Primarily upon the lack of a non-arbitrary reason to elevate one person’s value above that of another, and the conviction, based upon observation, that the emotions of others matter as much to them as mine matter to me.

That argument could be applied to any human being - unless you explain why a human embryo is singled out for exclusion!

No - not to any human being. Only one that is nonsentient, has never formulated personal goals, nor formed any attachments with others. That describes a human embryo, but does not apply to a human in any other condition.

Doesn’t it strike you that a **subjective ** consideration of the feelings of others is an arbitrary justification?

Not based upon the consideration that we are subjective beings, and the aforementioned observation that our subjective feelings matter to us. What is more, the existence of subjectivity and sentience, existing (as they demonstrably do) beyond the human species, make for a far less arbitrary and far more inclusive distinction than the claim that only humans have supreme moral value.

So sentience is your fundamental criterion of morality?

In the sense that sentience is the minimum requirement for moral consideration, yes. Consider the question of whether I ought to cut down a particular tree in my yard. What criteria might I weigh in the balance in this decision? Whether the tree poses a danger, for example, if it is unstable; whether I need the space for something else, such as planting vegetables; weigh that against the fact that there is a family of birds and a possum that I know to frequent the tree branches, and the fact that the tree itself is an object of beauty that I subjectively appreciate - all of these are considerations, but the feelings or opinion of the tree do not come in for consideration, simply because, based upon our current level of knowledge, it does not possess sentience. By the same token, in considering abortion, let’s say, there are obviously many factors to consider - such as the mother’s mental and physical health and how the pregnancy and birth might affect her; the feelings of the father towards the prospective child; the feelings of any other family members - but not the feelings of the foetus, because again, it does not possess sentience.

The utilitarian approach outlined here is obviously not absolutist, nor does it always provide a clear and obvious answer to a given moral dilemma. What it does is recognise the breadth of our impact upon the world, in a way that black-and-white morality does not. The latter simply cannot accommodate the complexities of human interaction with each other and the rest of our environment.

In an attempt to tie this back to the original topic of the thread, utilitarianism likewise has little time for slippery-slope arguments of the kind posed in the OP - every situation must be considered upon its own merits. Is it likely that official recognition of homosexual marriage will increase the overall levels of happiness amongst sentient beings? Perhaps. To use a less broad brush, is it likely that my gay friends will benefit from being allowed to contract an officially sanctioned marriage? Yes indeed. Will this inspire people to start marrying their pets and their toddlers? Probably not. These are different circumstances from a utilitarian perspective, which must, again, be considered on their own merits. It would not be enough for a man who wanted to marry his dog to say, “But my gay neighbours married each other, so if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.” He would have to justify his claim separately, and frankly, I don’t see how it could be done.

 

[tonyrey]

Since when does an observation upon your discussion techniques constitute an ad hominem? And it has been my experience that your “simple requests for clarification” are seldom thus, but usually an attempt to set up a reductio ad absurdum.

Is cross-examination an illicit technique? It is by no means impossible that a person’s statements turn out to be inconsistent…

On what do you base this belief?

Primarily upon the lack of a non-arbitrary reason to elevate one person’s value above that of another, and the conviction, based upon observation, that the emotions of others matter as much to them as mine matter to me.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the lack of a non-arbitrary reason”.

The recognition that people attach the same importance to their emotions as you do is not a sufficient reason to believe you have a moral obligation to respect their emotions to the same extent as your own

.That argument could be applied to any human being - unless you explain why a human embryo is singled out for exclusion!

No - not to any human being. Only one that is nonsentient, has never formulated personal goals, nor formed any attachments with others. That describes a human embryo, but does not apply to a human in any other condition.

The fact that a human being has not had the opportunity to develop - and would be sentient, formulate personal goals and form attachments with others if he or she were allowed to develop normally - are not valid reasons for denying him or her the right to life. According to your argument abortion is justified until the moment before birth…

What is more, the existence of subjectivity and sentience, existing (as they demonstrably do) beyond the human species, make for a far less arbitrary and far more inclusive distinction than the claim that only humans have supreme moral value.

Why do you assume Christians claim that only humans have “supreme” moral value?

Both subjectivity and sentience **are **arbitrary distinctions, like every other moral distinction, if all living organisms exist for no reason or purpose. They become merely human conventions rather than categorical imperatives.

So sentience is your fundamental

criterion of morality? In the sense that sentience is the minimum requirement for moral consideration, yes… By the same token, in considering abortion, let’s say, there are obviously many factors to consider… but not the feelings of the foetus, because again, it does not possess sentience.

It does not possess sentience** now** but it would do if it were allowed to develop normally. For the sake of convenience an arbitrary decision is made that the right to life depends on a time factor! The misfortune of not having developed sufficiently is used as an excuse for destroying a human being.

The utilitarian approach outlined here is obviously not absolutist, nor does it always provide a clear and obvious answer to a given moral dilemma.

It is only a moral dilemma for those who wish to proceed with an abortion.
It never provides a clear and obvious answer because it is a clear and obvious rationalisation of a desire to dispose of an inconvenient addition to the family.

What it does is recognise the breadth of our impact upon the world, in a way that black-and-white morality does not.

You are certainly right there - as the millions of abortions in recent years testify. It is highly convenient to enjoy a form of morality in shades of grey that can be adjusted to suit one’s particular requirements. The right to life becomes a matter which depends on no more than the latest consensus of subjective opinion…

The latter simply cannot accommodate the complexities of human interaction with each other and the rest of our environment.

In reality you have an anthropomorphic concept of morality because for you “man is the measure of all things”. Homo sapiens alone determines what is right and wrong, not only for himself but for every creature on this planet and throughout the universe. Shades of grey lend themselves to wonderful opportunities for expedient manipulation…
Moral relativism is the perfect solution for those who find objective values an obstacle to the satisfaction of their desires, not surprisingly because sentience is the supreme consideration!

In an attempt to tie this back to the original topic of the thread, utilitarianism likewise has little time for slippery-slope arguments of the kind posed in the OP - every situation must be considered upon its own merits. Is it likely that official recognition of homosexual marriage will increase the overall levels of happiness amongst sentient beings?

There is evidence from recent studies that children who are not brought up in the traditional family with a father and mother are susceptible to more psychological and educational problems. Deviations from the norm are likely to create confusion and insecurity because their most important needs are love from both parents and a sense of identity which is weakened when sexual differentiation and role models disappear. Life becomes a free-for-all which results in the misery which abounds in our permissive society. Morality based on sentience ultimately amounts to hedonism which John Stuart Mill “brutally” rejected:

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”

 

[Sair]

I’m not sure what you mean by “the lack of a non-arbitrary reason”.

Wouldn’t you consider it arbitrary for me to say, for example, “My feelings matter more than yours because you’re not me”?

The recognition that people attach the same importance to their emotions as you do is not a sufficient reason to believe you have a moral obligation to respect their emotions to the same extent as your own

It most certainly is if I want them to respect my emotions.

Why do you assume Christians claim that only humans have “supreme” moral value?

Simply because that is the case for most varieties of Christianity. Their claim is that only humans are made in the image of God - and you claim my morality is convenient!

Both subjectivity and sentience **are **arbitrary distinctions, like every other moral distinction, if all living organisms exist for no reason or purpose. They become merely human conventions rather than categorical imperatives.

Can you demonstrate that there are actually categorical imperatives? The fact of the matter is that sentience and subjectivity are the very things which affect quality of life. If life is ultimately meaningless, its only value is to be found in subjective satisfaction.

For the sake of convenience an arbitrary decision is made that the right to life depends on a time factor! The misfortune of not having developed sufficiently is used as an excuse for destroying a human being.

How is this actually, objectively worse than our decision to cut short the life of a pig, say, for the mere convenience of being able to eat it? The pig, unlike the foetus, is sentient, but has the misfortune not to be a human, in this case. Arbitrary, don’t you think? In any case, there is never any guarantee that a human foetus will develop to full term, nor that it will have much quality of life if it does. So it doesn’t depend just on a time factor - it depends on the actual and demonstrable fact that the foetus does not have the wherewithal for sentience, will not suffer and will not miss what it never had.

It is highly convenient to enjoy a form of morality in shades of grey that can be adjusted to suit one’s particular requirements.

Not half as convenient as a form of morality that claims humans are the only beings that matter.

The right to life becomes a matter which depends on no more than the latest consensus of subjective opinion…

And scientific research…

In reality you have an anthropomorphic concept of morality because for you “man is the measure of all things”. Homo sapiens alone determines what is right and wrong, not only for himself but for every creature on this planet and throughout the universe.

As I have explained before, the humanist maxim that man is the measure of all things is a practical consideration - how else are we to see the world but through our own eyes? We have the ability to recognise our fundamental kinship with all other animals, and our connectedness with and dependence upon the natural environment. It’s a bit rich, coming from someone who follows the dictates of an anthropomorphic god, to claim that a pantheist has an anthropomorphic concept of morality!

Shades of grey lend themselves to wonderful opportunities for expedient manipulation…

As does appeal to sacred scripture!

There is evidence from recent studies that children who are not brought up in the traditional family with a father and mother are susceptible to more psychological and educational problems. Deviations from the norm are likely to create confusion and insecurity because their most important needs are love from both parents and a sense of identity which is weakened when sexual differentiation and role models disappear.

There’s no reason to assume that sexual differentiation and role models of different genders will disappear because of the existence of gay couples raising children. For every study done that claims to show psychological and educational problems, there are other studies that demonstrate these are either non-existent or highly exaggerated. What utilitarian morality demands is not merely expedience, but honesty and epistemic rigour to discern the realities of a situation independently of prejudice.

 

[crazzeto]

It has certainly been my experience that embracing my sexuality has made me a more relaxed, more open-minded and more understanding person. I don’t necessarily think that it’s everybody’s right to have sex as and when they want - it’s a shared activity, after all, so there is inevitably the need for compromise and mutual consideration. I am not such an individualist that I believe my rights trump anyone else’s.

I hope yo0r not serious about this point, does it really take dangerous sexual promiscuity to become open minded and understanding? I think not, rather I think what it leads to is permissiveness and pandering.

Open minded, and understanding doesn’t mean panding to peoples sexual desires and saying anything goes. Oh no, you can not love some one if you would let them destroy them selves like that. Open minded and understanding means not condeming an individual for mistakes past or present. But rather than saying “well if you like orgies, then whatever”, you should encourage them to seek a healthy, positive love which truely builds up their personal self worth an character. We are worth far far more than to be used as a pleasure object by others. We deserve guniune respect, not to be treated like toys.

Becoming familiar, confident and comfortable with one’s body, and most importantly, unashamed of it, is a form of empowerment. What’s more, the psychological benefits of a healthy sex life are not inconsiderable. The flip side is that sexual repression demonstrably leads to unhealthy obsession with sex.

I see you accept the lies of the age, I would encourage you to take a moment to truely reflect upon where we’ve been, where we are, and where we’re going as a culture. I want you to sit back, and truely consider hedonism and moral relativism, and ask your self if we are really becoming a better society. This is what I did a number of years ago, after accepting these principals and it set me on a new path.

Why especially if I’m a woman? In what way does it make me a slave to learn what my body’s natural responses are, to learn what it means to have an intimate and caring sexual relationship (as opposed to a one-sided, inconsiderate or abusive one) and to be able to know and seek out what I need and to stand up for myself if I feel I’m being mistreated? The trouble with much of our culture’s approach to sex these days is that it’s been cheapened to the status of a mere commodity - something to be taken lightly and used as social currency and proof of status. There are many people, particularly teenagers, who feel pressured to have sex, but are insufficiently supported through the experience.

Why because it dove tales with feminism, so called “sexual liberation” has been the basis of personal empowerment. This shows the error of the approch which has been taken. Sexuality is absolutely not what empowers you, male or female it will never lead to an empowered, confident independent life. No, what it leads to is vulgar behaviour, slavery to sociatal demands as to “whats hot”, as well as to members of your “prefered” genders expectations. This is not empowerment.

Again, empowerment is the freedom to declare truths to the rulers of the world, empowerment is holding fast to your principals and beliefs no matter the cost, empowerment is living for truth no matter the abuse. This is empowerment, everything else is but slavery.

I’m not sure where you got the impression that this describes my sex life! I am in complete agreement that it does nothing for one’s sense of well-being to slavishly imitate what others do because it’s considered ‘cool’ or because that’s what the popular kids are doing.

Why because you could say I’m familiar with how things work today, remember. I’m not one totally unfamiliar what it’s like to decidedly not be living life for Christ.

 

[crazzeto]

Did she really? I have had a long fascination with Joan of Arc, in fact - I even took her as my confirmation saint when I was a child growing up Catholic. Certainly, her approach was radical and unconventional, but it’s hard to think of her as other than a victim of circumstance - caught up in the ravages of war and destroyed by politics in a society that did not understand her.

Then clearly you don’t understand her, if you actually believe she is in any way a victem. Rather, she was a pillar of strength, fighting for what was right. Was she forced to pay the ultimate price? Yes, but this is a part of true empowerment, the ability to freely choose not to back down, no matter the cost. This is what she did, this is a shining example for the rest of us, who will, likely, never have to make such a start choice.

But even if we never face the situation, there are many ways in which we need the same courage, the same sense of genuine empowerment. This can only come from God.

Interesting that every person whom I have seen roundly reject hedonism has, without exception, believed that it focuses only on bodily pleasures at the expense of “higher” pleasures. It does not. The greatest things we can achieve are only great because they give us pleasure and satisfaction. If they did not, why would we bother?

Interesting that you don’t understand the philosophy, look at what you wrote and see how it is self defeating.

I don’t buy into the pro-choice arguments that the foetus is not alive or that it’s not human - obviously it is both of these things. But there is an appreciable difference between an early-term foetus and a born baby, for example - one is insensible, the other is sentient. Unless you arbitrarily attach ultimate intrinsic value to human life, as opposed to any other kind of life, there is no reason to consider early-term abortion any worse than killing a chicken or uprooting a carrot. It may even cause less suffering.

If it is alive, and human then you are killing a human being yes? And for what purpose?

 

[tonyrey]

Wouldn’t you consider it arbitrary for me to say, for example, “My feelings matter more than yours because you’re not me”?

In a purposeless universe all statements about value or significance are arbitrary - as criminals are well aware…

The recognition that people attach the same importance to their emotions as you do is not a sufficient reason to believe you have a moral obligation to respect their emotions to the same extent as your own

It most certainly is if I want them to respect my emotions.

Then you are motivated by expediency rather than morality.

Simply because that is the case for most varieties of Christianity. Their claim is that only humans are made in the image of God - and you claim my morality is convenient!

1. Christians do not claim that human beings are the sole creatures made in the image of God. All rational beings without exception have that privilege.
2. Your morality is convenient because you regard yourself as the supreme judge of what you should or should not do and recognise no higher authority.

Can you demonstrate that there are actually categorical imperatives?

How about the categorical imperative to be reasonable? And to value the principles of logic and science?

The fact of the matter is that sentience and subjectivity are the very things which affect quality of life. If life is ultimately meaningless, its only value is to be found in subjective satisfaction.

In other words you subscribe to egoism and hedonism…

For the sake of convenience an arbitrary decision is made that the right to life depends on a time factor! The misfortune of not having developed sufficiently is used as an excuse for destroying a human being.

How is this actually, objectively worse than our decision to cut short the life of a pig, say, for the mere convenience of being able to eat it? The pig, unlike the foetus, is sentient, but has the misfortune not to be a human, in this case. Arbitrary, don’t you think?

Certainly! (I’m a vegetarian…)

In any case, there is never any guarantee that a human foetus will develop to full term, nor that it will have much quality of life if it does.

There is never any guarantee that any human enterprise will be successful. The mere possibility of failure or misery does not justify the destruction of a developing human being.

So it doesn’t depend just on a time factor - it depends on the actual and demonstrable fact that the foetus does not have the wherewithal for sentience, will not suffer and will not miss what it never had.

1. The foetus is arbitrarily deprived of the opportunity to develop the wherewithal for sentience.
2. Needless killing is evil even though it doesn’t cause suffering.
3. To kill on the ground that the victim will not miss what it never had presupposes that one has the absolute right to decide who shall live and who shall die

It is highly convenient to enjoy a form of morality in shades of grey that can be adjusted to suit one’s particular requirements.

Not half as convenient as a form of morality that claims humans are the only beings that matter.

That is the claim made by** humanists**.

The right to life becomes a matter which depends on no more than the latest consensus of subjective opinion…

.
And scientific research…

Science is amoral.

As I have explained before, the humanist maxim that man is the measure of all things is a practical consideration - how else are we to see the world but through our own eyes?

What we see through our own eyes is determined by our **individual **interpretations of reality. The maxim that man is the supreme measure of all things is an indisputably anthropomorphic concept of morality. It varies so widely from one individual interpretation to another that it is worthless! It is equivalent to worshipping a false god…

We have the ability to recognise our fundamental kinship with all other animals, and our connectedness with and dependence upon the natural environment.

If man is the supreme measure of all things man is **arbitrarily elevated above everything else **and arbitrarily distinguished from the natural environment.

It’s a bit rich, coming from someone who follows the dictates of an anthropomorphic god, to claim that a pantheist has an anthropomorphic concept of morality!

The pantheist has an anthropomorphic concept of morality because man is** arbitrarily** regarded as the supreme measure of all things, arbitrarily elevated above everything else and arbitrarily distinguished from the natural environment.

The theist has a** ratiocentric **concept of morality because it is based on rational, purposeful reality.

Shades of grey lend themselves to wonderful opportunities for expedient manipulation…

As does appeal to sacred scripture!

Subjective shades of grey lend themselves to wonderful opportunities for expedient manipulation whereas the appeal to sacred scripture has a **rational **foundation in the teaching of Jesus.

 

[tonyrey]

There is evidence from recent studies that children who are not brought up in the traditional family with a father and mother are susceptible to more psychological and educational problems. Deviations from the norm are likely to create confusion and insecurity because their most important needs are love from both parents and a sense of identity which is weakened when sexual differentiation and role models disappear.

Epistemic rigour does not alter the fact that morality is reduced to expediency. Honesty is a moral criterion that begs the question…

There is evidence from recent studies that children who are not brought up in the traditional family with a father and mother are susceptible to more psychological and educational problems. Deviations from the norm are likely to create confusion and insecurity because their most important needs are love from both parents and a sense of identity which is weakened when sexual differentiation and role models disappear.

There’s no reason to assume that sexual differentiation and role models of different genders will disappear because of the existence of gay couples raising children. For every study done that claims to show psychological and educational problems, there are other studies that demonstrate these are either non-existent or highly exaggerated.

"This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprising that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense – lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.

“And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families.”

“3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).”

This result is a vice rather than a virtue! It demonstrates that a child’s true sexual orientation may be distorted by the influence of a lesbian mother.

1. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.

Even though they do not have a homosexual orientation…

1. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers.

Chastity is regarded as a vice rather than a virtue, thereby fostering an increase in the number of unwanted pregnancies, needless abortions, spoilt lives and failed relationships…

Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.

Since most boys are heterosexuals they felt inhibited and repelled as the result of being **compelled to live with homosexual parents without any choice in the matter…
**

 

[tonyrey]

My point was that reading the Bible in the Spirit is not alien to Catholicism.

 

[Whadyamean]

Do you believe Jesus condoned prostitution? If not why not?

I believe that He took people as the Sons and Daughters of God, whatever their job might be.

 

[karebear92]

I believe that He took people as the Sons and Daughters of God, whatever their job might be.

As do we. We never should treat homosexuals, as people, differently. However, we cannot condone homosexual activity. Jesus said to sin no more. He did not say “I accept you as a child of God, so do as you wish and the Father can deal with you later.”

 

[tonyrey]

Do you believe Jesus condoned prostitution? If not why not?

That didn’t prevent Him from condemning immoral and degrading behaviour…

 

[Whadyamean]

That didn’t prevent Him from condemning immoral and degrading behaviour…

Of course not. But somehow it seems to me that He had an exquisite talent for meeting people where they were and moving from there.

 

[Whadyamean]

As do we. We never should treat homosexuals, as people, differently. However, we cannot condone homosexual activity. Jesus said to sin no more. He did not say “I accept you as a child of God, so do as you wish and the Father can deal with you later.”

Could you remind me of the part where He spoke of homosexuality?

 

[Sair]

I hope yo0r not serious about this point, does it really take dangerous sexual promiscuity to become open minded and understanding? I think not, rather I think what it leads to is permissiveness and pandering.

Open minded, and understanding doesn’t mean panding to peoples sexual desires and saying anything goes. Oh no, you can not love some one if you would let them destroy them selves like that. Open minded and understanding means not condeming an individual for mistakes past or present. But rather than saying “well if you like orgies, then whatever”, you should encourage them to seek a healthy, positive love which truely builds up their personal self worth an character. We are worth far far more than to be used as a pleasure object by others. We deserve guniune respect, not to be treated like toys.

I see you accept the lies of the age, I would encourage you to take a moment to truely reflect upon where we’ve been, where we are, and where we’re going as a culture. I want you to sit back, and truely consider hedonism and moral relativism, and ask your self if we are really becoming a better society. This is what I did a number of years ago, after accepting these principals and it set me on a new path.

Why because it dove tales with feminism, so called “sexual liberation” has been the basis of personal empowerment. This shows the error of the approch which has been taken. Sexuality is absolutely not what empowers you, male or female it will never lead to an empowered, confident independent life. No, what it leads to is vulgar behaviour, slavery to sociatal demands as to “whats hot”, as well as to members of your “prefered” genders expectations. This is not empowerment.

Again, empowerment is the freedom to declare truths to the rulers of the world, empowerment is holding fast to your principals and beliefs no matter the cost, empowerment is living for truth no matter the abuse. This is empowerment, everything else is but slavery.

Why because you could say I’m familiar with how things work today, remember. I’m not one totally unfamiliar what it’s like to decidedly not be living life for Christ.

Actually, your entire post demonstrates, firstly, that you didn’t read what I wrote, and secondly, that you can’t see beyond the limiting dictates of church-sanctioned sexuality.