legislating morality

[meltzerboy]

-There have been many cultures where homosexuality was more prevalent than in ours as well.

-Disease rates are harder to track the further back in time you go. There was no CDC 200 years ago. Literary and historical accounts while anecdotal, suggest that homosexuality has always been present enough especially among priest casts of all religions, from Native American to Christianity.

-If it only happened here and there in older cultures, the homophobes who wrote Leviticus and Deuteronomy wouldn’t have spent so much time prescribing death to all homosexuals. Of course, they had a reason to be homophobes. They needed to keep the Jewish population up, and these books were written in a period where exile and subjugation to other cultures threatened the continuance of the Jewish culture.

Sure, there have been and continue to be societies and religious groups that spend a lot of time teaching sexual abstinence. Could you share some data points that prove that anyone actually followed any of it?

What I have stated was in reference to direct observations that can be found in the Congressional Record about the business dealings of certain American politicians. How is that overwrought? Mind you, because you have confidence in a particular politician, doesn’t mean that I should.

I don’t sense that I am having any despair over morality. I am fine with my own morals. I just don’t want yours forced on people who are simply trying to live their lives as happily as possible as guaranteed by the constitution that purposefully separated church and state to protect me from your religion and you from mine.

Your friend
Sufjon

You mentioned Native American cultures and homosexuality. Perhaps this requires a new thread, but do you know more about this connection? The only thing I’ve read is that Native Americans are quite tolerant about homosexual behavior since they believe everyone has an individual spirit that must follow its own destiny.

 

[Mumbles140]

Good, then we shouldn’t have any disagreement. The minute you say a woman should be forced to die to save a fetus, then I disagree completely.

Your friend
Sufjon

And I never will, because that is not respecting the life of the mother, and the Church teaches respect for all life.

 

[Mumbles140]

-There have been many cultures where homosexuality was more prevalent than in ours as well.

-If it only happened here and there in older cultures, the homophobes who wrote Leviticus and Deuteronomy wouldn’t have spent so much time prescribing death to all homosexuals. Of course, they had a reason to be homophobes. They needed to keep the Jewish population up, and these books were written in a period where exile and subjugation to other cultures threatened the continuance of the Jewish culture.

Sure, there have been and continue to be societies and religious groups that spend a lot of time teaching sexual abstinence. Could you share some data points that prove that anyone actually followed any of it?

I don’t sense that I am having any despair over morality. I am fine with my own morals. I just don’t want yours forced on people who are simply trying to live their lives as happily as possible as guaranteed by the constitution that purposefully separated church and

1. Well they couldn’t have had too many or they wouldn’t have lasted too long.
2. Seriously, this is the most annoying thing about arguing homosexuality with someone. I am not homophobic, and neither is every single person who is against homosexuality. This is so ironic because the liberals often accuse conservatives of doing the same thing, but using patriotism instead of sexuality. I have extended family who are openly gay, and though I disagree with it, I am their relative and treat them with love and respect. That being said, I do not condone their behavior, I do not support their right to be married or have a civil union or whatever you want to call it, and I do not support their right to adopt. Let me be clear that I do not dislike homosexuals - I believe that practicing homosexuality is sinful. I also think that unmarried couples engaging in sexual activity is sinful. So please don’t refer to us as homophobes - those are our beliefs based on what God has created and revealed to us, and they are founded in reason.
3. I can find you an article link if you want, but last summer I believe, a sweeping study found that abstinence education in public schools in America is actually more effective (though far from 100%, sadly) at preventing minors from having sex than teaching them about condoms, etc.
4. If you knew about the US Constitution, you would know that the ‘separation of Church and State’ cannot be found in the Constitution. Now, the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights states the government cannot establish a national religion. It wasn’t until Thomas Jefferson, who had some major anti-religion/tradition ideologies, wrote a letter to a Christian community did he use the phrase ‘separation of Church and State.’

 

[Joan1969]

Good Morning, Sufjon,

Literary and historical accounts while anecdotal, suggest that homosexuality has always been present enough…

I have not denied the presence of homosexuality, which has probably been present to some degree in nearly all cultures. Prevelence is more important- how frequent, both with respect to percentage practicing it and with respect to individual acts. If homosexual acts are morally undesirable, then cutting the incidence is very worthwhile.

Sure, there have been and continue to be societies and religious groups that spend a lot of time teaching sexual abstinence. Could you share some data points that prove that anyone actually followed any of it?

Simply that past societies did not experience massive disease and family collapse in the absence of effective modern contraceptives and antibiotics. Before then, the only way to reliably establish paternity and family life was through continence, espcially in women. Yes, it could be (and continues to be in some places), severe. And the success of different cultures would obviously vary. Disadvantaged urban populations would tend to have more serious problems in any culture and age.

The allegation that all this promiscuity was “taking place in secret” is an unfalsifiable assertion. You will need much stronger evidence. While hypocrisy is real, there is no reason to believe that all the members of a given continence-promoting culture are hypocrites, which is what is necessary to believe your scenario. Remember, we are talking about universal social mores, advocated by virtually everyone of that time and place.

Also, I would again point out that traditional chastity is successfully taught to a majority of young people in a huge number of families and subcultures, especially religious groups. Why should things have been different in the past?

I don’t sense that I am having any despair over morality. I am fine with my own morals. I just don’t want yours forced on people who are simply trying to live their lives as happily as possible as guaranteed by the constitution that purposefully separated church and state to protect me from your religion and you from mine.

Any morals you would impose? I must assume so, since you are not an anarchist. How about protecting religion from the state? I hope you see the urgent need for that, given the recent history of humankind.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Joan1969]

“Direct laboratory evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that emergency contraceptives work by mechanisms that do not include post-fertilization events. Since these drugs are administered within hours of intercourse and implantation does not occur until approximately five to seven days after ovulation, use of emergency contraception does not interrupt pregnancy and is ineffective after pregnancy has occurred.”

I am not sure of this source. Who said this?

72 hours officially. Unofficially, up to 120 hours. Effectiveness decreases as time goes on, indicating that, as you said, some women may have already conceived by the time they take it. (That’s what I assume anyway. There are probably other reasons it could fail.)

Probability of pregnancy after unprotected intercourse by timing of coitus for a 20-something:
3 days before ovulation 15 percent
1 or 2 days before ovulation 30 percent
day of ovulation 12 percent
1 or 2 days after ovulation near zero

So you see, if the woman ovulates on Monday, has unprotected intercourse on Tuesday, and takes Plan B on Wednesday, and does not get pregnant, it would be wrong to assume that Plan B allowed conception to occur (i.e. beginning of life, if using that definition) but ended the pregnancy by preventing implantation…

I would not assume anything, but I am saying it seems to be a very possible and normal function of the drug, given that conception may well have already occured by the time Plan B is taken. The web site gives 72 hours (3 full days), but many women are concieving within a day or two, and some within hours of intercourse. If all these women got pregnant (with full implantation), I think Plan B would not be effective.

120 hours is five days. It is fairly rare to ovulate/conceive five full days after intercourse, so if Plan B works at all at this stage it would seem to be by some type of interference with implantation.

I will admit here I am talking about probabilities. Perhaps someone will prove, statistically or medically, that Plan B is only preventing ovulation or interfering with the sperm, and never or almost never interferes with an existing embryo. But the heavy burden of proof is on Plan B advocates, since a person’s life starts at fertilization and not at implantation.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[samiam1611]

Sorry for straying from the thread. real quick:

“Direct laboratory evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that emergency contraceptives work by mechanisms that do not include post-fertilization events. Since these drugs are administered within hours of intercourse and implantation does not occur until approximately five to seven days after ovulation, use of emergency contraception does not interrupt pregnancy and is ineffective after pregnancy has occurred.”
I am not sure of this source. Who said this?

I hesitated to put the source since it’s copyrighted. PM me if you want to know - their usage agreement says it’s ok to share bits of information with individuals. To borrow from the “about us” page on their website, it’s “written by physicians who are experts in their fields”, “evidence-based”, “unbiased, providing information that is not influenced by commercial interests).” Of course, the data from this article is from other sources - it is not a journal, or source for primary information. They have footnotes for that.

I would not assume anything, but I am saying it seems to be a very possible and normal function of the drug, given that conception may well have already occured by the time Plan B is taken. The web site gives 72 hours (3 full days), but many women are concieving within a day or two, and some within hours of intercourse. If all these women got pregnant (with full implantation), I think Plan B would not be effective.
120 hours is five days. It is fairly rare to ovulate/conceive five full days after intercourse, so **if **Plan B works at all at this stage it would seem to be by some type of interference with implantation.

Plan B has other mechanisms of actions, which I am less familiar with:
Interference with fertilization or tubal transport
Causing regression of the corpus luteum
and lastly - Prevention of implantation by altering endometrial receptivity.
I suppose Plan B’s effect on endometrial receptivity would prevent a feritlized ovum from implanting. The medical definition of pregnancy (for instance, when the pregnancy hormone HCG starts being produced) is after implantation, not fertilization. But I understand that the Catholic Church rejects the medical definition and it is their opinion that pregnancy begins with fertilization.

I will admit here I am talking about probabilities. Perhaps someone will prove, statistically or medically, that Plan B is only preventing ovulation or interfering with the sperm, and never or almost never interferes with an existing embryo. But the heavy burden of proof is on Plan B advocates, since a person’s life starts at fertilization and not at implantation.

Yes, probabilities are at play here. Remember (now this is not putting the burden of proof on them and you made a good point with that) that effectiveness decreases as time goes on, and also that Plan B is not 100% effective even when taken within 72 hours. So yes, some people probably conceive before they take Plan B - and doesn’t that explain the fact that it is not 100% effective?
It should be noted that the officials for the Catholic Church in the US (USCCB) say, “If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already,** she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization**. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”
I assume that the medication they are talking about is Plan B (which is a brand name so they wouldn’t specify that). So apparently they have relieved Plan B from absolutely proving without a doubt that it doesn’t remove destroy or interfere with implantation of the embryo. (Actually, it’s a zygote not an embryo yet.) Plan B most certainly does not remove or destroy a fertilized ovum. But if its other mechanisms of action fail, it may interfere with implantation, which is not a legal or medical definition of abortion, but it is what it is (as the saying goes).

 

[Sufjon]

You mentioned Native American cultures and homosexuality. Perhaps this requires a new thread, but do you know more about this connection? The only thing I’ve read is that Native Americans are quite tolerant about homosexual behavior since they believe everyone has an individual spirit that must follow its own destiny.

Hi Meltzerboy:

I read quite a few books on Native Americans when I was younger, but this is all off of recollection, and that was a long time ago. The way I recall it was that In some tribes, you basically had three choices for a career if you were a boy. Warrior, horse thief, or medicine man. In some tribes medicine men were usually homosexual. By the way, horse thief wasn’t a dishonorable thing to be in those tribes.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Brendan]

i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

If someone has a religious belief that states that black people are actually demons and need to be killed on site, but your religious beliefs say that it is immoral, should the government have the authority to regulate the killing of black people. Or would that be a imposition of your personal morality on that other person?

 

[Joan1969]

Plan B has other mechanisms of actions, which I am less familiar with:
Interference with fertilization or tubal transport
Causing regression of the corpus luteum
and lastly - Prevention of implantation by altering endometrial receptivity.
I suppose Plan B’s effect on endometrial receptivity would prevent a feritlized ovum from implanting. The medical definition of pregnancy (for instance, when the pregnancy hormone HCG starts being produced) is after implantation, not fertilization. But I understand that the Catholic Church rejects the medical definition and it is their opinion that pregnancy begins with fertilization.

I think then that we have a philosopical disagreement rather than a medical one. I have not thought of Plan B as interfering with an implanted embryo. Yet I believe in repsect for human life from its beginning (fertlization), not from the beginning of changes in the mother’s body (implantation).

That’s my position, so I’ll end it here. Thanks very much for taking the time to talk with me about the issue!

God Bless,
Joan

 

[samiam1611]

I think then that we have a philosopical disagreement rather than a medical one. I have not thought of Plan B as interfering with an implanted embryo. Yet I believe in repsect for human life from its beginning (fertlization), not from the beginning of changes in the mother’s body (implantation).

That’s my position, so I’ll end it here. Thanks very much for taking the time to talk with me about the issue!

God Bless,
Joan

cool cool. good talk

 

[mark_avery]

i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

so abortion is a sin in the catholic church, but why should hindus or muslims have to accept that? some do or don’t anyway, but there doesn’t seem to be any general consensus in those religions. most muslims allow it until the fourth month, and many, but not all, hindus ban it outright.

so my question isn’t on whether or not abortion is a sin. rather, i want to know is if it is ever alright to force one person’s beliefs on another person, and why or under what circumstances.

I think yes abortion is an evil,for who can separate that for which the lord unites as one,the marriage is then not valid.For he does not make mistakes.

On the up side though,it could not be the fault of the unborn and the lord is always merciful to the little,so hopefully they might escape somewhat to the tyrant of this world,or self suffer for there recalcitrant actions.

So to force it,the answer is is its not really possible,you can lead a horse to the water but you can not make it drink.

 

[Sufjon]

1. Well they couldn’t have had too many or they wouldn’t have lasted too long.
2. If you knew about the US Constitution, you would know that the ‘separation of Church and State’ cannot be found in the Constitution. Now, the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights states the government cannot establish a national religion. It wasn’t until Thomas Jefferson, who had some major anti-religion/tradition ideologies, wrote a letter to a Christian community did he use the phrase ‘separation of Church and State.’

I know about the US Constitution and watched a Tea Party Candidate get laughed off the stage at a law school for saying what you are trying to push on me. If you attend most any law school, you will be quite familiar with two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the “separation of church and state.” Here’s an excerpt from the Constitution, which, actually has relevance in a court of law: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.That line from the Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice whatever religion you want, including the thousand belief systems that don’t coincide with the one to which you subscribe. It also means the government is prohibited from promoting or enforcing any single religious or spiritual belief. In other words, preferential treatment to any religious doctrine by any law in this country is forbidden by the Constitution
.Thomas Jefferson was a framer of the constitution who attended the constitutional convention and was also the author of the declaration of independence, fist Secretary of State and one of the first presidents. It was he who coined the phrase “separation of church and state” to characterize his understanding of that first amendment guarantee. If you can find someone who better understands the intent behind amendment than Thomas Jefferson, please ask them to join the discussion. If on the other hand you want to continue throwing nonsense at me, there is no point to continue the conversation.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[WTSherman]

Legislating morality I am never in favor of. I believe in individual liberty.

I draw the line when people think its ok to have abortions instead of being careful what you do!

The problem is 3-500k people are eliminated each year because people won’t use the technology and discretion available to them!

 

[sidbrown]

so if your personal beliefs permit theft, rape, battery or any other crime the state should not legislate morality for you?

As far as child rape is concerned, hasn’t the Catholic Church been shielding clergy child rapists from prosecution to the full extent of the law?

 

[SalesianSDB]

When it comes to this, I’m very libertarian. I am in favor of letting people make their own choices, realizing that your freedom ends where another person’s begins. That being said, I am pro-life as there is the right of the unborn child. But if a person (adult) wants to do something and they are not harming another person, I am all for the freedom to let them do that.

 

[WTSherman]

When I hear attacks about Catholic priests I wonder to myself;

If its this bad with the Catholics, imagine whats going on in the protestant clergy!

 

[Sufjon]

Legislating morality I am never in favor of. I believe in individual liberty.

I draw the line when people think its ok to have abortions instead of being careful what you do!

The problem is 3-500k people are eliminated each year because people won’t use the technology and discretion available to them!

A lot of them are being told that some of the best technology available to avoid pregnancy is a sin. They take their chances and we end up where we are. It is not an excuse, however, to use abortion as a form of birth control. If you had to chose, I would chose a condom rather than killing someone before they are born. One is clearly worse than the other. If you make no concessions based on sound reasoning, you get what you get. Insistence on making no concessions is costing lives. It wouldn’t save all of them, but you could probably save a lot of them.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[sidbrown]

When I hear attacks about Catholic priests I wonder to myself;

If its this bad with the Catholics, imagine whats going on in the protestant clergy!

It is not the media, but the bad priests who are hurting the reputation of the Catholic Church.

 

[paedagogo]

It is not the media, but the bad priests who are hurting the reputation of the Catholic Church.

When I was an acolyte, we knew who that gay priest was, and so did the other priests. I did not understand what they were saying when they warned us not to change our clothes around him. My wife was an opera fanatic and we went on several opera tours. On each of these were openly gay priests. When I was in college, I was friends with a young priest. As I got to know his priest friends, it became apparent that many of them were gay.

Later, I became more active in Protestant churches, and I did not run into as many gay people, until recently. This is purely anecdotal, but there seem to be a lot of lesbian clergy in the Episcopal church. I know that a lot of gay parishioners are there, for obvious reasons.

My own theory on the high incidence of gay men in the clergy of the Catholic Church is that the celibacy requirement is no more difficult than ordinary life would be for a homosexual, if he is to remain in his faith. I mean a heterosexual priest gives up the possibility of marriage to a woman. A gay person in the Catholic Church is already celibate unless he chooses to live in sin. So, he has already made one of the commitments required of a priest, simply by remaining in his faith.

When you think about it, there is a certain nobility to a gay person who stays in the Church, as there is also with a straight person who resists temptation. With all the derogatory comments, and controversy swirling about over “gay marriage”, I sometimes wonder if people stop to consider this.

As for the predation of children, I don’t understand why so much of it happened in the Church. I also don’t understand entirely why the Church took the stance that was politically convenient, over what I see as the morally correct position, in protecting these men from temporal authority. There were possibly victims which could have been helped, and these efforts were obstructed, in my opinion.

I would also point out, that I don’t think that there is a correlation between homosexuality and the predation of kids. I am quite unclear, and even confused, about how and why it all happened in the Church, and why the Church handled that matter in the way that it did.

 

[Mumbles140]

I know about the US Constitution and watched a Tea Party Candidate get laughed off the stage at a law school for saying what you are trying to push on me. If you attend most any law school, you will be quite familiar with two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the “separation of church and state.” Here’s an excerpt from the Constitution, which, actually has relevance in a court of law: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.That line from the Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice whatever religion you want, including the thousand belief systems that don’t coincide with the one to which you subscribe. It also means the government is prohibited from promoting or enforcing any single religious or spiritual belief. In other words, preferential treatment to any religious doctrine by any law in this country is forbidden by the Constitution
.Thomas Jefferson was a framer of the constitution who attended the constitutional convention and was also the author of the declaration of independence, fist Secretary of State and one of the first presidents. It was he who coined the phrase “separation of church and state” to characterize his understanding of that first amendment guarantee. If you can find someone who better understands the intent behind amendment than Thomas Jefferson, please ask them to join the discussion. If on the other hand you want to continue throwing nonsense at me, there is no point to continue the conversation.

Your friend,
Sufjon

I am well aware of the clauses mentioned. My point was that the phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ is not actually found in the Constitution. And I find it ironic that this Constitution upholds laws that bans Catholic professionals from acting upon their beliefs. I am against gay marriage, and in the state where I live, it recently became law. Now, they rejected an amendment to the Bill that would excuse teachers with moral objections from having to teach about homosexuality and gay marriages in the classroom (I believe a ‘substitute’ would come in to teach the material), and yet it failed. By the laws of this country, Catholics are being forced out of adoption agencies, the medical profession, teaching, and other careers. Even a Catholic college came under fire because its health care plan wouldn’t pay for abortions of the plan participants. Now, how is that protecting our rights to practice our religious beliefs?

Furthermore, let us not forget that our fragile country was built on the backs of people upholding Judeo-Christian values. The desire not to impose a religion on the government was to prevent a theocracy or monarchy, which we had recently broken away from with the British Empire. That is why the bill of rights contains values and protections that are in line with certain morals, so where do you think those morals came from?

The fact of the matter is this is all moot. The pro-life movement is not founded on religious beliefs. Some religions support the pro-life movement, but it is not a religious idea. It is a moral idea that it is wrong to murder another person.

And, Jefferson was very controversial, and many feel he was too heavily affected by his love of European political philosophy that came about from people under monarchies and in religious states. His ideas were quite out there, as can be seen by his ‘personal edit’ of the New Testament where he dismissed any statements or actions of Christ that he thought were ‘too radical’ and left a much tamer portrait of Christ. He was seemingly against organized religion and made sure that made its way into his political realm.

I am all in favor of supporting a citizen’s right to practice whatever religion they choose, if they so choose to practice one. However, don’t go railing on Catholics about freedom of religion when the laws of the government don’t let us practice our beliefs. How many in the ‘Nation of Islam’ were able to forego being drafted because of religious beliefs? Cassius Clay for one. So why do Catholic health plans have to support murder if Muslims in the 1960s were able to get a free pass? Where is the justice there?