Gay Marriage in America

[John21652]

That’s a rather blanket statement. In my household we teach that each of our children’s points of view is valid and must be given an airing.

If you teach that each child’s point of view is valid, then, of course, you wont contradict their points of view. If you do, you deny the validity of their points of view. In other words, whatever your children think is fine, valid and not up for correction. I hope none of them join the communist party!!

They do have a point of view, as do evolution deniers and climate change deniers. Whether those viewpoints deserve a hearing depends on the audience and the context.

Here you are advocating moral relativism and censorship both. If the audience doesn’t think a point of view deserves an airing, so be it. That is how debate is stifled in totalitarian societies.

I another post you claimed to teach ethics and yet not to have heard of a moral heirarchy. You need to read the Catholic Catechism and read up on, firstly, the Cardinal virtues and then on mortal and venial sins. I would also recommend studying the criminal law. It tells you in great detail how some crimes are worse than others and why punishments vary accordingly. You should also have a read of Aquinas’s Summa Thealogica. In it he examines a heirarchy of wrongs, in particular the voluntary versus involuntary wrongness of acts and the intent behind them. I’m sure you teach your kids that some acts are worse than others; that some are naughty and some are really, really bad. I hope so, anyway.

Throughout this thread you have woven an argument based on moral relativism. You seem to confuse the requirement that a moral order is required for a society to function and flourish with the fact that toleration for certain behaviours can also exist. However, the question, as posed by the topic of this thread, is just how far should that toleration extend. The question of normalizing homosexual relations through the allowance of homosexual ‘marriage’ is the equivalent of overturning the accepted moral order, which, contrary to what you write, is indeed based on a heirarchy of morals. The arguments for homosexual marriage are all based on moral relativism and that is in direct contradiction with the Catholic Church. Overturning just one aspect of that moral heirarchy, or even playing around with it bit by bit, is akin to blowing hard on a house of cards. Lots of cards will eventually tumble, whilst some will remain in place. The result will be, however, an unholy mess to pick up and your original house of cards will be very unsightly.

 

[StAnastasia]

Overturning just one aspect of that moral heirarchy, or even playing around with it bit by bit, is akin to blowing hard on a house of cards. Lots of cards will eventually tumble, whilst some will remain in place. The result will be, however, an unholy mess to pick up and your original house of cards will be very unsightly.

I’ll find your post more convincing when you show me some evidence that granting full legal protection to gays and lesbians increases the rate of murder, arson, embezzlement, larceny, etc. By the way, it’s spelled “hierarchy.”

 

[FormerWarrior]

If you teach that each child’s point of view is valid, then, of course, you wont contradict their points of view. If you do, you deny the validity of their points of view. In other words, whatever your children think is fine, valid and not up for correction. I hope none of them join the communist party!!

Here you are advocating moral relativism and censorship both. If the audience doesn’t think a point of view deserves an airing, so be it. That is how debate is stifled in totalitarian societies.

I another post you claimed to teach ethics and yet not to have heard of a moral heirarchy. You need to read the Catholic Catechism and read up on, firstly, the Cardinal virtues and then on mortal and venial sins. I would also recommend studying the criminal law. It tells you in great detail how some crimes are worse than others and why punishments vary accordingly. You should also have a read of Aquinas’s Summa Thealogica. In it he examines a heirarchy of wrongs, in particular the voluntary versus involuntary wrongness of acts and the intent behind them. I’m sure you teach your kids that some acts are worse than others; that some are naughty and some are really, really bad. I hope so, anyway.

Throughout this thread you have woven an argument based on moral relativism. You seem to confuse the requirement that a moral order is required for a society to function and flourish with the fact that toleration for certain behaviours can also exist. However, the question, as posed by the topic of this thread, is just how far should that toleration extend. The question of normalizing homosexual relations through the allowance of homosexual ‘marriage’ is the equivalent of overturning the accepted moral order, which, contrary to what you write, is indeed based on a heirarchy of morals. The arguments for homosexual marriage are all based on moral relativism and that is in direct contradiction with the Catholic Church. Overturning just one aspect of that moral heirarchy, or even playing around with it bit by bit, is akin to blowing hard on a house of cards. Lots of cards will eventually tumble, whilst some will remain in place. The result will be, however, an unholy mess to pick up and your original house of cards will be very unsightly.

Can you give an actual example, rather than an analogous house of cards?

 

[Eugenius]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Unlike same sex unions, the infertile heterosexual couples who adopt children have no political agenda towards gender roles.

The few SS couples I know don’t appear to have a political “agenda,” they just found someone they wanted to share their life with with minimum interference from the government.

 

[Eugenius]

I’ll find your post more convincing when you show me some evidence that granting full legal protection to gays and lesbians increases the rate of murder, arson, embezzlement, larceny, etc. By the way, it’s spelled “hierarchy.”

I always find it interesting that people think “full protection” for homosexuals means the beginning of the end. They stand in the middle of filth and decay pretending to be shiny, happy people, not realizing society is already in shambles.

 

[Hastrman]

I’ll find your post more convincing when you show me some evidence that granting full legal protection to gays and lesbians increases the rate of murder, arson, embezzlement, larceny, etc. By the way, it’s spelled “hierarchy.”

Gays and lesbians have full legal protection; crimes committed against them are published just as fully as any others.

Or are you using “full legal protection” to mean something else?

 

[StAnastasia]

Gays and lesbians have full legal protection; crimes committed against them are published just as fully as any others. Or are you using “full legal protection” to mean something else?

Homophobia is on the rise around the globe. That’s why legal protection is needed.

17 May 2011 – “Hate crimes against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people are rising around the world, the United Nations human rights chief said today, urging governments to do much more to eliminate discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38406&Cr=Pillay&Cr1

 

[StAnastasia]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]The few SS couples I know don’t appear to have a political “agenda,” they just found someone they wanted to share their life with with minimum interference from the government.

Eugenius, perhaps of my work in academe and my exposure to the world of the arts, theatre and music, I know hundreds of LGBT people. Some are politically active and some lead quiet family lives. The only political they have that I know of is wanting to be able to be with the person they love without being harassed.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Homophobia is on the rise around the globe. That’s why legal protection is needed. …

Homosexuals already have legal protection just like everybody else. A crime is a crime.

 

[StAnastasia]

Homosexuals already have legal protection just like everybody else.

They do not in much of the world.

A crime is a crime.

A tautology is a tautology.

 

[Hastrman]

Homophobia is on the rise around the globe. That’s why legal protection is needed.

Homosexuals have legal protection in America, Europe, East Asia, and most of Latin America. More than heterosexuals, in many places, since people are not penalized extra for their motives in crimes against heterosexuals, and that’s what “hate crimes” laws do. To say nothing of the places where people can be jailed merely for repeated millennia-old teachings on the morality of homosexual acts.

As for the rest of the world, I doubt very much you would support the West imposing those legal protections for homosexuals by force, but that would be the only way it will ever happen.

 

[sedonaman]

Homophobia is on the rise around the globe. That’s why legal protection is needed.

17 May 2011 – “Hate crimes against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people are rising around the world, the United Nations human rights chief said today, urging governments to do much more to eliminate discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38406&Cr=Pillay&Cr1

“When you increase sensitivity, you increase the false alarm rate.” – Author unknown

 

[John21652]

I’ll find your post more convincing when you show me some evidence that granting full legal protection to gays and lesbians increases the rate of murder, arson, embezzlement, larceny, etc. By the way, it’s spelled “hierarchy.”

Asking to show a positive correlartion between full legal protection for gays and lesbians and a supposed increase in the crime rate is as good a display of obtuseness as I have ever sen. You must practice, surely, to be so good at it? I find your posts long on facetiousness and short on argument. You fail to engage with arguments that strike at the very core of your moral relativism and you trivilaise the issues wherever possible. Is it the best you can do to pick someone up on a spelling error? Someone else’s spelling errors don’t make your arguments any the more sensible, let alone compelling.

Others have already picked you up on the fact that the notion of gay ‘marriage’ is not required to give legal protection to gays and lesbians. That argument is simply a red herring and factually wrong in the telling.

You still need to tell us how it is that you, who supposedly teaches ethics, have not heard of a hierarchy of morals. More so as you profess to be Catholic and the Catechism points out to anyone who cares to read its contents that there is indeed a hierarchy .of right and wrong. Like I said, the Criminal Law also recognises a hierarchy of right and wrong. In case you didn’t know it, the Criminal Law in western societies is based on the Catholic view of morality and has been so ever since Justinian implemented his legal code. Go look it up.

If you are indeed a Catholic, then you need to begin to preach and practice what the Church teaches and not what is anathema.

 

[StAnastasia]

I find your posts long on facetiousness and short on argument.

I resort to facetiousness because your claim that public recognition of gay and lesbian relationships will lead to the moral breakdown of society is vacuous.

 

[qui_est_ce]

ASomeone else’s spelling errors don’t make your arguments any the more sensible, let alone compelling.

Others have already picked you up on the fact that the notion of gay ‘marriage’ is not required to give legal protection to gays and lesbians. That argument is simply a red herring and factually wrong in the telling.

You still need to tell us how it is that you, who supposedly teaches ethics, have not heard of a hierarchy of morals. More so as you profess to be Catholic and the Catechism points out to anyone who cares to read its contents that there is indeed a hierarchy .of right and wrong. Like I said, the Criminal Law also recognises **a hierarchy of right and wrong. In case you didn’t know it, the **Criminal Law in western societies is based on the Catholic view of morality and has been so ever since Justinian implemented his legal code. Go look it up.

John, in the US it’s spelled recognizes.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I resort to facetiousness because your claim that public recognition of gay and lesbian relationships will lead to the moral breakdown of society is vacuous.

STA, I think John made some pretty good point in his last post. Could you address his post point by point? I’d be interested in where you think his argument fails.

Thanks!

 

[SwizzleStick]

I resort to facetiousness because your claim that public recognition of gay and lesbian relationships will lead to the moral breakdown of society is vacuous.

Lead to moral breakdown? We’re already there since it is even a topic of discussion. It’s just one more nail in the coffin.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Homosexuals have legal protection in America, Europe, East Asia, and most of Latin America. More than heterosexuals, in many places, since people are not penalized extra for their motives in crimes against heterosexuals, and that’s what “hate crimes” laws do. To say nothing of the places where people can be jailed merely for repeated millennia-old teachings on the morality of homosexual acts.

This is why I don’t understand the civil rights aspect of the homosexual movement in the US.

As for the rest of the world, I doubt very much you would support the West imposing those legal protections for homosexuals by force, but that would be the only way it will ever happen.

I would not support that either. I think spreading true Christianity is the only way we can stop this evil torture of humans.

 

[Hastrman]

I would not support that either. I think spreading true Christianity is the only way we can stop this evil torture of humans.

Which would require a war, to happen in the Islamic world—since they kill you for apostasy.

And I was being facetious, anyway.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Which would require a war, to happen in the Islamic world—since they kill you for apostasy.

And I was being facetious, anyway.

True, the number of Christians in many parts of the Islamic world has been decimated. Lebanon used to be a Christian country as little as 30 years ago.