Is Dan Cathy a bigoted homophobe?

[spencelo]

Yes, and as I’ve said (when you asked me the difference between purpose and function), purpose refers to a desired result in nature. Thus, we want to help blind people see because we want eyeballs to function for their desired purpose. Similarly, “permanently” infertile couples often spend tens of thousands of dollars so that their reproductive organs can function to their desired purpose (obviously this is not always possible).

What do you mean by “desired result in nature?” The “desired result in nature” could be different from the “desired result of a particular person.” Suppose I’m blind, but instead of getting surgery so I can see, I get surgery so I can shoot beams out of my eyes (imagine this is possible). My new (cyclops) eyeballs now have the “desired result” that I wish them to have. Why isn’t accurate to say that my eyeballs now have the essential purpose of shooting beams, given that they now function according to my desired purpose of them?

Similarly, suppose I’m both impotent and sterile, and I get help to correct only my impotence problem. I now have the “desired result” that I wish my organ to have, which is achieving sexual pleasure. Why isn’t accurate to say that my organ now has the essential purpose of achieving sexual pleasure, given that it functions according to my desired purpose for it?

If you nevertheless maintain that the “desired purpose” of my organ is to procreate, then I must ask: whose purpose? Not mine obviously. God’s?

 

[livingwordunity]

Consider a man born sterile. He hasn’t “lost” his ability to procreate because he never had it.

But he still has a penis. Penis is made for vagina.

 

[stewstew03]

If you nevertheless maintain that the “desired purpose” of my organ is to procreate, then I must ask: whose purpose? Not mine obviously. God’s?

Yes. Welcome to Catholic Answers Forum, where you will find that Catholics believe in God.

 

[spencelo]

Yes. Welcome to Catholic Answers Forum, where you will find that Catholics believe in God.

But I thought you were trying to give a secular justification against SSM, which explained your appeal to the concept of “ordered towards procreation.” If “ordered towards procreation” has implicit reference to God, then your argument against SSM is really no different than the “it’s against the Bible” rationale. Since I don’t accept the Bible, why should I accept the concept of “ordered towards procreation,” which seems to be derived from the Bible.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The State has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of my marriage, or how I value it. That is for me and my husband.

Hello AG. I’m not sure if that’s the issue. It’s not that the State is making a value judgment on the *quality *of your relationship. It’s the fact that the State is saying that your marriage is fundamentally something other than what it was before the term could be applied to same sex unions.
AG:

I do not see the ability to have children as a ‘‘defining’’ characteristic of marriage. My husband just had to shout ‘‘SPERM’’ within earshot of me and I got pregnant. I count myself very fortunate in that regard.

Again, I think you’re missing the point. A marriage is the formal recognition that the act between husband and wife that gives rise to new life is legitimate. There is no such act as between two people of the same sex.
AG:

But were I not able to conceive, or were he to be sterile, something we could only ever have found out after we were married as we did not engage in pre-marrital sex (I like to pretend I made the man sweat it out but the reality is I almost drove myself insane ) we would have a different marriage for sure, but just as worthy and deep and valuable. We would have adopted without a doubt. So I don’t see the ability to have children naturally as any kind of special, or defining, characteristic of marriage.

But societies throughout history do clearly see the connection. We cannot simply ingore that fundamental aspect of marriage for the sake of political correctness.
AG:

Married same sex couples already exist

It only begs the question, “What is a marriage.”
AG:

My marriage is not affected by them or their existence, other than I am so happy for them to be able to have a marriage on an equal footing, for them, to mine.

I don’t think that it’s correct to suggest that there is animosity towards same sex couples over the issue. As a christian I am called to love my neighbor, even my enemy, so I wish nothing but good for my neighbors who have same sex attraction. The “beef” is with a government that refused to acknowledge that there is a qualitative difference between a relationship that has historically been recognized as a marriage, and a same sex union that, although arising from deep feelings of affection and even love, is something different because it cannot generate new life.
AG:

But you can’t seriously be suggesting were I to be barren, my marriage would be devalued. Of course not.

I never intended to suggest such a thing.
AG:

But I don’t think it matters. We have IVF, which I think Catholics think is gravely wrong, adoption and so on so same sex couples have such enormous potential to offer a great, loving, nurturing home to needy children, or in the case of IVF or sperm donation, one parents own child and shared by their marriage partner, not unlike a young widow remarrying and the new husband helping with the bringing up of her children.

There is a difference between a remarriage of a widow, and a same sex union. The remarriage of a widow and a new husband is open to the possibility of creating new life without any outside “help” whereas even the most sincere same sex union can never acheive such a miracle. Again, the act of creating life necessarily involves breaking the unitive aspect of the “marriage” for a same sex couple. The child is going to be deprived of a relationship with its natural mother and/or father.

Peace,
Robert

 

[stewstew03]

But I thought you were trying to give a secular justification against SSM, which explained your appeal to the concept of “ordered towards procreation.” If “ordered towards procreation” has implicit reference to God, then your argument against SSM is really no different than the “it’s against the Bible” rationale. Since I don’t accept the Bible, why should I accept the concept of “ordered towards procreation,” which seems to be derived from the Bible.

Ok

 

[atheistgirl]

It’s the fact that the State is saying that your marriage is fundamentally something other than what it was before the term could be applied to same sex unions.

And that’s irrelevant to me and my marriage. There’s no connection. My marriage is mine. It’s what my husband I and make of it, what it means to us - it’s of no consequence to me what anyone else thinks of it.

Again, I think you’re missing the point. A marriage is the formal recognition that the act between husband and wife that gives rise to new life is legitimate. There is no such act as between two people of the same sex.

No, I’m not missing it, I get the point your making - I don’t agree with it.

But societies throughout history do clearly see the connection. We cannot simply ingore that fundamental aspect of marriage for the sake of political correctness.

We don’t need to ignore it. Traditional marriage will continue to exist. Same sex couples will hopefully be able to also enjoy this State recognition.

Sarah x

 

[Stephen168]

If you nevertheless maintain that the “desired purpose” of my organ is to procreate, then I must ask: whose purpose? Not mine obviously. God’s?

It doesn’t matter who or what. It’s purpose has been shown to you using reason. Using it for that purpose is your option.

 

[maximus]

My big issue here is why are government officials getting involved in this. If some people did not like the comment from Mr. Cathy then feel free to boycott. If you do not like JC Penny and Target’s pro HS ads do not buy there. Why does there have to be government officials sticking their noses where it does not belong.

I think also involved in this issue is that many HS like the chain itself, or at least did. At a previous workplace a couple of gay co-workers really enjoyed going there.

Personally I find the chain’s food ok; when I need a chicken fix it is Popeye’s . My wife meets with other home schoolers there once in a while. They have nice playgrounds that are actually cleaned every night and you get all sorts of people from different backgrounds there. For the sake of the children that have lots of fun there I hope that this senseless backlash goes away.

God Bless

 

[livingwordunity]

My big issue here is why are government officials getting involved in this. If some people did not like the comment from Mr. Cathy then feel free to boycott. If you do not like JC Penny and Target’s pro HS ads do not buy there. Why does there have to be government officials sticking their noses where it does not belong.

Because Obama and the Dems have now succeeded in turning the USA into a communist dictatorship. The USA is even to the left of Russia now. Proof of that is the fact that Russia still values traditional marriage and doesn’t believe it should change. Since Dems have been in power they have taken away religious liberty, freedom of speech, and they are working on taking away our right to bear arms. Obamacare will force small businesses to close, the middle class will sink down to a poverty class that is stuck on Welfare. What will be left is Obama and his filthy rich atheist supporters at the top and the rest of us stuck at the bottom. Democrats are all about government control of the people.

 

[St_Francis]

And that’s irrelevant to me and my marriage. There’s no connection. My marriage is mine. It’s what my husband I and make of it, what it means to us - it’s of no consequence to me what anyone else thinks of it.

In the 60s, when no-fault divorce came along, many women said the same thing you are saying here, until their husbands left them because they had so little to lose.

In the 70s, many women said the same thing you did as alimony started to disappear, until their husbands started leaving them because they could now afford to.

Obviously these were individual instances. Many did not divorce with the reduction of legal consequences. However, this did affect *many *women; women who had supported their husbands through their careers and then just before their husbands retired, they were left high and dry.

This shows the law of unintended consequences wrt marriage. Now a “pal” can get more money after a break-up than an actual spouse–that makes no sense.

Now there are people who want to enshrine “loooove” as the basis for marriage rather than children and familes. In a few years, the divorce courts will be clogged by HS DINKs and we enact changes to reflect that, and children will be left with even less protection than they have now.

It is not that this will affect the relationship that you and you husband have now. It is that this change will affect *the society in which you live, and the society in which your children will live, *because the fundamental unit of society is the family, and the future of our society is the child. We would be unraveling the structure of our society *even further *by making this change.

 

[spencelo]

It doesn’t matter who or what. It’s purpose has been shown to you using reason.

But that’s the thing: it’s so-called purpose has NOT been shown using reason, unless by “reason” you mean “what the Bible says.”

 

[PRmerger]

But that’s the thing: it’s so-called purpose has NOT been shown using reason, unless by “reason” you mean “what the Bible says.”

I don’t think anyone has quoted the Bible at all in this thread.

Are you perhaps thinking of a different thread you’ve been posting in?

And you may have forgotten that you’re on a* Catholic* forum and that Catholics don’t derive our doctrine from the Bible.

 

[atheistgirl]

In the 60s, when no-fault divorce came along, many women said the same thing you are saying here, until their husbands left them because they had so little to lose.

In the 70s, many women said the same thing you did as alimony started to disappear, until their husbands started leaving them because they could now afford to.

I think you need to do a fact check here

Women have always been in the majority when seeking a divorce.

A study reported in the American Law and Economics Review in 2000, “These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women” also showed that more recently, women file more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the US. Even though the individual states’ data vary somewhat and the numbers have fluctuated over time, throughout most of the 19th century about 60 percent of divorce filings were by women.

Moreover, in some of the states where no-fault divorce was introduced, over 70 percent of the divorce filings were by women. Among college-educated couples, the percentage of divorces initiated by wives is a whopping 90 percent.

It’s women who initiate divorce procedings in most cases - women who even if their standard of living were to dramatically decline, would rather live out of a soup kitchen than tolerate their no good husbands a minute longer.

Time was when women had no choice.

Not any more

Sarah x

 

[St_Francis]

I think you need to do a fact check here

Women have always been in the majority when seeking a divorce.

OK, I’ll accept that. My examples came from my experience, which was at that time women being left by their husbands

It’s women who initiate divorce procedings in most cases - women who even if their standard of living were to dramatically decline, would rather live out of a soup kitchen than tolerate their no good husbands a minute longer.

Now we can get to my more recent experience, which is that the divorces I have known of have been initiated by women, who chose to leave not their “no-good husbands” but perfectly good husbands who are human and have their faults, just as do the women who left them. And these women left because they knew that they could get welfare and help with housing and free legal aid and all they had to do was look sad and allude to abuse and they would get full custody of their children.

Yeah, there are some really abusive husbands out there, but there are also some really abusive wives. There are surveys which show an equal amount of abuse of men from their female partners.

The acceptance of the changes in divorce have allowed this hopefully unintended consequence of more broken homes, of more children raised in poverty and in single-parent homes, etc. Again, my point stands, which is that traditionally society has set up marriage to provide stability for the primary unit of society, and to provide a good environment for the future of the society.

Now it is proposed that we change the function of marriage to be not to creation of a new family but the “celebration of loooooooove,” so why should it be denied to any people who are having sex together?

Why should it be denied to 3 people who looooooove each other? Or 4? You say it should be restricted to 2 people; I say it should be restricted to 2 heterosexual people, and I at least have some reasoning, even if you do not accept it, on my side. Whereas there is nothing on your side to validate prohibiting polygamy.

Time was when women had no choice.

Now men have no choice. They have no choice in the “pro-choice” issue of abortion, they have no choice in the matter of whether or not they are to be allowed to remain in their own family.

Not any more

That you could put up a smiley icon after describing something which has caused upmost misery to many men and their children speaks volumes, hopefully about your ignorance of this topic.

 

[PRmerger]

That you could put up a smiley icon after describing something which has caused upmost misery to many men and their children speaks volumes, hopefully about your ignorance of this topic.

Indeed.

Divorce, in general*, has proven to be a disaster for women and children. It’s just a trading of one set of problems for another set of problems.

Women are, almost always, poorer after divorce.
Children fare worse in school. And adolescents in particular are especially affected negatively by divorce.

So it would be an ignorant person indeed who declares divorce to be a benefit to society. I put folks like this in the same category as folks who declare that Jesus never even existed: fact deniers who ought to be categorically dismissed.

*NB: No one ought to deny that, in some rare cases, divorce is the only alternative. The Catholic Church acknowledges this of course. But we are talking about generalities here.

 

[atheistgirl]

That you could put up a smiley icon after describing something which has caused upmost misery to many men and their children speaks volumes, hopefully about your ignorance of this topic.

For you to even attempt to come back with a little sarky comment repeating my words back at me, when what I was addressing was someone putting a smiley after a comment that suggested I approved of a process that saw tens of thousands of my ancestors die agonizing deaths from starvation and disease says as much about you as it does about them.

I was addressing the fact that women no longer have to endure abusive violent relationships and can chose to divorce if they wish.

Gone are the days when women were powerless to have any control over their lives or their marriages.

Gone are the days when men thought they could do what the heck they liked with the their ‘‘property’’ and the women could do zilch about it.

Gone are the days a woman has to remain within an abusive relationship.

In fact, I’ll give that three more

I did not say it was desirable, nor did I say it was easy or per sae good - I know several divorced people and know what they’ve been through.

But now the woman has the option to divorce when all else has failed or she is very real danger of serious harm she no longer has to endure an abusive relationship or be shunned by society and family.

I said the days when the woman had no choice are gone and it is that that deserves the

You knew this of course, but somehow thought any conversation with me would be enhanced with your sarcastic remark.

I’ve read the life of Saint Francis. Since you call yourself after him, perhaps you should too.

Out of politeness I am informing you, you are now on ignore since your comments to me are nothing but sarcastic trolling and rather than engaging with you, it’s best all round to simply use the feature this board helpfully supplies for just such eventualities.

I’ll give that three as well.

Sarah x

 

[St_Francis]

I guess Sarah didn’t read the rest of my post…

For you to even attempt to come back with a little sarky comment repeating my words back at me, when what I was addressing was someone putting a smiley after a comment that suggested I approved of a process that saw tens of thousands of my ancestors die agonizing deaths from starvation and disease says as much about you as it does about them.

I was addressing the fact that women no longer have to endure abusive violent relationships and can chose to divorce if they wish.

Gone are the days when women were powerless to have any control over their lives or their marriages.

Gone are the days when men thought they could do what the heck they liked with the their ‘‘property’’ and the women could do zilch about it.

Gone are the days a woman has to remain within an abusive relationship.

In fact, I’ll give that three more

I did not say it was desirable, nor did I say it was easy or per sae good - I know several divorced people and know what they’ve been through.

But now the woman has the option to divorce when all else has failed or she is very real danger of serious harm she no longer has to endure an abusive relationship or be shunned by society and family.

I said the days when the woman had no choice are gone and it is that that deserves the

You knew this of course, but somehow thought any conversation with me would be enhanced with your sarcastic remark.

I’ve read the life of Saint Francis. Since you call yourself after him, perhaps you should too.

Out of politeness I am informing you, you are now on ignore since your comments to me are nothing but sarcastic trolling and rather than engaging with you, it’s best all round to simply use the feature this board helpfully supplies for just such eventualities.

I’ll give that three as well.

Sarah x

 

[buffalo]

Consider a man born sterile. He hasn’t “lost” his ability to procreate because he never had it.

His parents had it. So it is a loss of function.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

And that’s irrelevant to me and my marriage. There’s no connection. My marriage is mine. It’s what my husband I and make of it, what it means to us - it’s of no consequence to me what anyone else thinks of it.

You’re argument fails to acknowledge the fact that marriage is not a private institution. It’s a public statement. How you decide to live your relationship with your husband in private is not the same as the formal public recognition of your relationship as a marriage.
AG:

No, I’m not missing it, I get the point your making - I don’t agree with it.

You don’t agree with the fact that two people of the same gender cannot procreate? That’s just nonsensical. Or is it that you do not accept the fact that marriage has always been the recognition of such a relationship. Again, that is simply dishonest. The fact is that the definition of marriage has to change before it can be applied to same sex couples. I’m not sure what would be more troubling. That you simply refuse to acknolwedge this, or that you honestly don’t see it?
AG:

We don’t need to ignore it. Traditional marriage will continue to exist. Same sex couples will hopefully be able to also enjoy this State recognition.

So, you think there should be a splintering of the term? That “marriage” should become “traditional marriage” and same sex unions should be called “same sex marriages?” If so, how would this be acceptable to the community that wants to eliminate any distinction between same sex unions and male/female unions?

Peace,
Robert