Gay marriage... how we ended up where we are

[Thorolfr]

I can’t speak for the actions of any non-human species, other than to note that the notion of morality does not exist for animals. So nothing relevant to right and wrong can be gleaned from observing animals.

How do you know that animals have no morality? You should try reading Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (University of Chicago Press, 2009)

 

[Rau]

How do you know that animals have no morality? You should try reading Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (University of Chicago Press, 2009)

. Can’t judge a book by its title Thor!

 

[kozlosap]

How’s this theory for you? Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Everything said about homosexuality was written by humans filled with the same biases and sins as the rest of us. The bible, our holy book is rife with rules that encourage us to engage in immoral and illegal acts like killing our kids when they disrespect us. We are supposed to ignore some things in the holy book while following others. As Satan has taught us, we can pick and choose which passages to use in order to advance whatever agenda we want. Anything in the Bible that tries to destroy genuine love between two single consenting adults is just as suspect as killing your kids. Your being gay does not hurt me, does not hurt my children and does not hurt society. There are not enough gay people in the world that their very existence will negatively affect the world’s population or the Church’s population.

God made all people, gay and straight. We find homosexual behavior in all two sex species where we have looked. Homosexuality is part of the God’s world. It’s pervasive throughout God’s creation. There are those who use the Bible as a reason to look into your bedroom and pass judgement on your personal actions. Their judgement, however, is not your cross to carry. If they want to correct God on this, that’s up to them. And you know what? Most Catholics get it. Most straight Catholics know and love gay family members and friends. They see and feel the Holy Spirit in them and they support God’s handiwork.

Everyone needs to ask… who am I to judge what’s in their hearts.

Thank you for the very heartfelt and (IMHO) true post!

 

[kozlosap]

why do you need to discuss your sex life with your best friend and your sister?

LOL! When we were in our twenties, certainly not at 62!

 

[Thorolfr]

. Can’t judge a book by its title Thor!

I haven’t just judged it by it’s title. I have the book. According to the blurb at Amazon:

Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals.

amazon.com/Wild-Justice-Moral-Lives-Animals/dp/0226041638/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1438824381&sr=8-2&keywords=Wild+Justice

 

[meltzerboy]

I haven’t just judged it by it’s title. I have the book. According to the blurb at Amazon:

amazon.com/Wild-Justice-Moral-Lives-Animals/dp/0226041638/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1438824381&sr=8-2&keywords=Wild+Justice

This kind of research has taken even the psychological community by storm, so it is hard to imagine the reactions of (some of) the religious community.

Besides, religion’s use of science is variable: sometimes it is applied, when it can fit in with religious beliefs, while other times, it is ignored or criticized when at odds with those beliefs.

 

[Rau]

I haven’t just judged it by it’s title. I have the book.
amazon.com/Wild-Justice-Moral-Lives-Animals/dp/0226041638/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1438824381&sr=8-2&keywords=Wild+Justice

So, God calls on animals to behave to certain standards! Because that is what is required if the behavior of animals is to be deemed subject to morality.

Social behaviours have long been recognized in animals. Is this now to be elevated to the level of morals? Or is morality to be lowered to the level of social behaviours in animals?

 

[Thorolfr]

So, God calls on animals to behave to certain standards! Because that is what is required if the behavior of animals is to be deemed subject to morality.

Do you pretend to know so much about God that you are absolutely sure that this is not the case?

 

[Rau]

Do you pretend to know so much about God that you are absolutely sure that this is not the case?

I neither pretend nor claim any such great knowledge. You introduced the idea that morality applies to animals. You are welcome to make the novel case that animals discern right from wrong and will be accountable to God for their actions.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

why do you need to discuss your sex life with your best friend and your sister?

What’s wrong with privacy? I was taught that personal, private and “family” matters were things you didn’t ask your friends’ parents about.

I end up hearing about my friends’ and one of my sisters sex lives. Normally as an abstraction, not a play by play. In part I think it’s because I am not known for disclosing personal information so they feel assured that I’m not going to inject what they disclose into the common knowledge of their social network. Usually if I hear something it is because it contributes to a larger narrative being shared and sex is relevant to the situation. Given that these same individuals trust me with their computing devices and passwords for accounts when they need technical assistance I think they just trust me with personal information in general.

That being said I don’t care to hear of the sex lives of random individuals.

I knew my parents must have had sex but we never talked about it.

My parents had a book of positions and gave it to me. The print date shows as well before my conception. It’s something that I understand many might find disturbing

 

[anthrogirl]

So, God calls on animals to behave to certain standards! Because that is what is required if the behavior of animals is to be deemed subject to morality.

Social behaviours have long been recognized in animals. Is this now to be elevated to the level of morals? Or is morality to be lowered to the level of social behaviours in animals?

Think of chimps and gorillas for a moment. These animals show love, compassion and empathy. They sacrifice their safety and/or lives for others in their family. They intervene and de-escalate confrontations. They teach their young how to do things like use tools. These animals mourn/cry. They feel happiness, get angry, sulk and forgive. They make thoughtful decisions when faced with options. They remember the past and understand the concept of future. They understand the concepts of time and learn complex mathematics. They can feel insulted and they can purposefully insult others. These animals have a sense of humor, understand jokes and come up with their own unique jokes. They can be sarcastic. They understand and apply the concepts of barter and trade. They enforce and live by a code of acceptable behavior and will apply consequences/justice to those who misstep. They comprehend the concept of right and wrong. They appreciate and create music. They appreciate and create works of art. These animals come together in protective units when needed and work together to fend off dangers. They show restraint and put off action until the time is right. They feel sorrow for the plight of others and offer condolences (like the gorilla who mourned and expressed her sorrow for a human companion who had a miscarriage).

While I was thinking about chimps and gorillas when I wrote my list, elements apply to many other species as well. Like the teeny brained parrots smart enough to multiply and divide. Like the small brained dogs who sacrifice their own lives to protect their families. We should let go of our arrogance and recognize that we too are a species. We have
a lot in common with other animal species when it comes to decision making and behaviors.

Love and morality do not require higher ordered or complex thinking. We can find humans with low IQs exhibiting high levels of moral consistency and we can find higher IQ people doing whatever they please. So we can’t tie morality to intelligence. That would mean the higher your IQ, the more moral you will be. Hitler had a high IQ as did Einstein. Two very different men with two very different sets of morals.

FYI… Koko the gorilla had an IQ (her best) of 95 which put her in the low/normal range for humans. Her Stanford U buddies said that her intelligence was typical of gorillas. She had over a 2000 word human vocabulary and could sign over 1000 words. She also had an extensive gorilla vocabulary (how she communicated with other gorillas). We know that dolphins, elephants and even pigs have shown remarkable signs of higher ordered thinking. If we take higher ordered thinking out of the equation, what in our make up makes us more moral than other species? Our souls? Our faith believes that all living things have souls but that our souls are different because animals lack “conceptional intelligence” (Catholic Answers, Quick Answers). How can you sin when you don’t know what you’ve done is wrong? As science continues to break down this misconception, what’s left? In the past, many thought whites were more moral than blacks for the same reason. At some point we just need to let go of this one.

Lastly, what is moral and what is not moral is defined by individuals and to a large extent, individual societal units. It would be difficult to apply any one set of morals to the entire human species let alone to other species. What you need to look for is consistency in species protective behaviors and consequences/justice when individuals act outside the prescribed behaviors. Chimps are great examples of this.

 

[meltzerboy]

Think of chimps and gorillas for a moment. These animals show love, compassion and empathy. They sacrifice their safety and/or lives for others in their family. They intervene and de-escalate confrontations. They teach their young how to do things like use tools. These animals mourn/cry. They feel happiness, get angry, sulk and forgive. They make thoughtful decisions when faced with options. They remember the past and understand the concept of future. They understand the concepts of time and learn complex mathematics. They can feel insulted and they can purposefully insult others. These animals have a sense of humor, understand jokes and come up with their own unique jokes. They can be sarcastic. They understand and apply the concepts of barter and trade. They enforce and live by a code of acceptable behavior and will apply consequences/justice to those who misstep. They comprehend the concept of right and wrong. They appreciate and create music. They appreciate and create works of art. These animals come together in protective units when needed and work together to fend off dangers. They show restraint and put off action until the time is right. They feel sorrow for the plight of others and offer condolences (like the gorilla who mourned and expressed her sorrow for a human companion who had a miscarriage).

While I was thinking about chimps and gorillas when I wrote my list, elements apply to many other species as well. Like the teeny brained parrots smart enough to multiply and divide. Like the small brained dogs who sacrifice their own lives to protect their families. We should let go of our arrogance and recognize that we too are a species. We have
a lot in common with other animal species when it comes to decision making and behaviors.

Love and morality do not require higher ordered or complex thinking. We can find humans with low IQs exhibiting high levels of moral consistency and we can find higher IQ people doing whatever they please. So we can’t tie morality to intelligence. That would mean the higher your IQ, the more moral you will be. Hitler had a high IQ as did Einstein. Two very different men with two very different sets of morals.

FYI… Koko the gorilla had an IQ (her best) of 95 which put her in the low/normal range for humans. Her Stanford U buddies said that her intelligence was typical of gorillas. She had over a 2000 word human vocabulary and could sign over 1000 words. She also had an extensive gorilla vocabulary (how she communicated with other gorillas). We know that dolphins, elephants and even pigs have shown remarkable signs of higher ordered thinking. If we take higher ordered thinking out of the equation, what in our make up makes us more moral than other species? Our souls? Our faith believes that all living things have souls but that our souls are different because animals lack “conceptional intelligence” (Catholic Answers, Quick Answers). How can you sin when you don’t know what you’ve done is wrong? As science continues to break down this misconception, what’s left? In the past, many thought whites were more moral than blacks for the same reason. At some point we just need to let go of this one.

Lastly, what is moral and what is not moral is defined by individuals and to a large extent, individual societal units. It would be difficult to apply any one set of morals to the entire human species let alone to other species. What you need to look for is consistency in species protective behaviors and consequences/justice when individuals act outside the prescribed behaviors. Chimps are great examples of this.

Not only chimps, dolphins, parrots (who do not merely mimic), and dogs, but recent research by ethologists, primatologists, and comparative psychologists have found other species exhibit much more intelligent as well as moral behavior than ever previously thought possible. These include certain types of birds, crows in particular, as well as elephants.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Not only chimps, dolphins, parrots (who do not merely mimic), and dogs, but recent research by ethologists, primatologists, and comparative psychologists have found other species exhibit much more intelligent as well as moral behavior than ever previously thought possible. These include certain types of birds, crows in particular, as well as elephants.

Next you’ll be saying animals have organized religions.

 

[meltzerboy]

Next you’ll be saying animals have organized religions.

LOL No, their religious systems are rather disorganized. But I’m sure they’re working on it.

 

[Thorolfr]

Next you’ll be saying animals have organized religions.

Chimps probably wouldn’t make very good traditional Catholics since they don’t practice monogamy

 

[Exiled_Child]

This did not happen overnight. Some events were known at the time, others not until later. The poison was slowly, drop by drop, year after year, dripped into our veins. In the end, appeals to emotion - feeling good - overcame logic and reason. Then, you repeat the message, in various ways through various media, over a 40 year period, and people become conditioned and desensitized. That’s why Christianity had to be attacked during the same time period. The family had to be attacked. Norms had to be turned into the “wrong” way. Why bother believing or going to Church or caring about having children, or reducing relationships to: “the moment this gets unpleasant, I’m out.”? No self-disciple, not saying “I’m sorry,” not getting at the root of the problem. All that really matters is you. Sacrifice? For another person? Go through hard times with them (no, I’m not talking about abuse)? Hard work? Pleasure - just pleasure.

Let’s go back to 1973. The American Psychiatric Association is being targeted by radical gay activists and closeted gays in the APA, to get Homosexuality removed as a disorder from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. A vote is held and what was a disorder yesterday is not a disorder the following day. Years of research and published articles go out the window.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

Move forward to 2013 and a similar lobbying effort has the same result for Transgendered persons.

“Whereas previously a man who “self-identified” as a woman (or vice versa) could have been classified as mentally ill, now the DSM-5 uses the term “gender dysphoria,” which means it is only a mental illness if you’re troubled by this self-identification. Elated activists in the “LGBT” community had lobbied the APA for the change for years.”

Source: ncregister.com/daily-news/psychiatrys-new-normal-transgendered-persons

That approach is not logical or scientifically sound.

I also work in the media. Every word you read, image you see or sound you hear (people discussing homosexuality) gets stored on some level. I also understand the basics of Psychological Warfare, and it has all the same elements. Truths mixed with partial truths, mixed with lies. And delivered with the appropriate level of emotion.

Wake up, my fellow Catholics. Getting information the easy way is definitely not the best, especially on labeled “hot button” issues with a disproportionate amount of emphasis. Yes, it’s disheartening sometimes, but learn, ask questions. Don’t be confused. Learn what the Church teaches and why.

Ed

:clapping:

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Chimps probably wouldn’t make very good traditional Catholics since they don’t practice monogamy

I always found it funny that in the Anglican Church, the bishops are called primates!

 

[Thorolfr]

I always found it funny that in the Anglican Church, the bishops are called primates!

There are primates in the Roman Catholic Church as well:

The Latin Church title of primate has in some countries been granted to the bishop of a particular (usually metropolitan) see.[53] It once involved authority over all the other sees in the country or region, but now only gives a “prerogative of honor” with no power of governance unless an exception is made in certain matters by a privilege granted by the Holy See or by an approved custom.[54] The title is usually assigned to the ordinary of the first diocese or the oldest archdiocese in the country.[53] Thus in Poland, the primate is the archbishop of the oldest archdiocese (Gniezno, founded in 1000), and not the oldest diocese (Poznań, founded in 968).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_the_Catholic_Church#Primates

In the Western Church, a primate is an archbishop—or rarely a suffragan or exempt bishop—of a specific episcopal see (called a primatial see) who has precedence over the bishops of one or more ecclesiastical provinces of a particular historical, political, or cultural area. Historically, primates were granted privileges including the authority to call and preside at national synods, jurisdiction to hear appeals from metropolitan tribunals, the right to crown the sovereign of the nation, and presiding at the investiture (installation) of archbishops in their sees.[1]

The office is generally found only in older Catholic countries, and is now purely honorific, enjoying no effective powers under canon law—except for the Archbishop of Esztergom (Gran) in Hungary.[1] Thus, e.g., the Primate of Poland holds no jurisdictional authority over other Polish bishops or their dioceses, but is durante munere a member of the standing committee of the episcopal conference and has honorary precedence among Polish bishops (e.g., in liturgical ceremonies). The Holy See has also granted Polish primates the privilege of wearing cardinal’s crimson attire, except for the skullcap and biretta, even if they have not been made cardinals.

Some of the leadership functions once exercised by primates, specifically presiding at meetings of the bishops of a nation or region, are now exercised by the president of the conference of bishops: “The president of the Conference or, when he is lawfully impeded, the vice-president, presides not only over the general meetings of the Conference but also over the permanent committee.”[4] The president is generally elected by the conference, but by exception the President of the Italian Episcopal Conference is appointed by the Pope, and the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference has the Primate of All Ireland as President and the Primate of Ireland as Vice-President. Other former functions of primates, such as hearing appeals from metropolitan tribunals, were reserved to the Holy See by the early 20th century.[1] Soon after, by the norm of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, confirmed in the 1983 Code, the tribunal of second instance for appeals from a metropolitan tribunal is “the tribunal which the metropolitan has designated in a stable manner with the approval of the Apostolic See”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_(bishop)

 

[JimG]

One way we ended up where we are with respect to gay marriage is lack of leadership, lack of pushback, and supine caving in to a Court which imagines itself to be endowed with infallibility. The Executive and the Legislative branches are not subordinate to the Court; they are co-equal.

Same Sex “Marriage” and the Crisis of Leadership

“All the Republican presidential candidates should be asked if they commit themselves to refusing to enforce Obergefell on reluctant states—in other words, using their rightful power to restrain a renegade Court. If they cannot answer “yes,” then they should not be supported. The usual stance of expressing disagreement with unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions followed by complete inaction is no longer acceptable. Presidential non-enforcement is, I believe, the most reliable way to thwart the Court’s unconstitutional decisions.”

 

[Thorolfr]

One way we ended up where we are with respect to gay marriage is lack of leadership, lack of pushback, and supine caving in to a Court which imagines itself to be endowed with infallibility. The Executive and the Legislative branches are not subordinate to the Court; they are co-equal.

Same Sex “Marriage” and the Crisis of Leadership

“All the Republican presidential candidates should be asked if they commit themselves to refusing to enforce Obergefell on reluctant states—in other words, using their rightful power to restrain a renegade Court. If they cannot answer “yes,” then they should not be supported. The usual stance of expressing disagreement with unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions followed by complete inaction is no longer acceptable. Presidential non-enforcement is, I believe, the most reliable way to thwart the Court’s unconstitutional decisions.”

So you think that Obama or any other Democrat in the Oval Office is going to try and thwart the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges? And based on the Republican candidates running for president, I doubt we will have a Republican president any time soon.