R
Robin_des_Bois
Guest
So, legalizing incestious marriage may be OK one day, and I won’t be surprised if some atheists start campaigning for this, after all, incest is banned because the Bible banned it.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Here is a must-read article on homosexuality and masturbation.
newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0113-notes-sanity
newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0113-notes-sanity
T
Tyrion
Guest
What lack of charity??
You have this fascination with “sodomy”, or anal sex. Looks like you cannot imagine other types of love making between male homosexuals, but you are wrong. Not to mention that heterosexual couples engage in this practice, if and when they so choose. Of course, no one would try to force you to participate in love making action that you find unappetizing. You don’t like it, don’t do it. But leave others alone, since whatever they do in the privacy of their bedroom is simply none of your business.
Besides, on what grounds do you present your ex-cathedra (yet personal) opinion what is “love” and what is not? Masters and Johnson were experts… you are not.
Erotic love (eros) goes hand in hand with lust… and there is nothing wrong nor “unnatural” about it. Actually, eros without lust is not even lukewarm.
It would do you a world of good to investigate the other kinds of love making. There are excellent books on the subject, even if you do not wish to try them.
Whether it would occur to me, or not, is not the point. The problem is to use highly derogatory words in an environment which explicitly forbids them.Would it really occur to you to describe my heterosexual behavior as “putridly disgusting”?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
A good read.
A couple of parallel situations come to mind here.
One must be sober to recognize the futility, dissipation and general disutility of the drunken state. Just as an insane person does not grasp the nature of their insanity, and an inebriated person is not fully aware of their state, so too, a morally lapsed individual is not in a position to judge their true moral condition.
A thief must rationalize away the moral wrongness of stealing or s/he will not long remain a thief.
Likewise with sexual sins. There is a need to rationalize and prove the legitimacy of deviancy and lust or conscience would soon prevail. Never underestimate the power of rationalization if the motive is strong enough and lust is a very strong motivator. It will often undermine right judgement, especially where the approval of a morally diminished society has been gained.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Tyrion
**
Whether it would occur to me, or not, is not the point. The problem is to use highly derogatory words in an environment which explicitly forbids them. **
To which derogatory words do you refer? Please quote the passage directly.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that because you don’t like the truth, you have to classify it as derogatory.
Jesus was derogatory when he addressed the hypocrites in the temple as vipers. Do you think the temple was an environment in which he should have kept his mouth shut?
**
Whether it would occur to me, or not, is not the point. The problem is to use highly derogatory words in an environment which explicitly forbids them. **
To which derogatory words do you refer? Please quote the passage directly.
Don’t make the mistake of assuming that because you don’t like the truth, you have to classify it as derogatory.
Jesus was derogatory when he addressed the hypocrites in the temple as vipers. Do you think the temple was an environment in which he should have kept his mouth shut?
B
Bradski
Guest
It will be legalised when people think that there’s nothing wrong with it. Do you think that might happen? Do you have any reasons why you think it won’t?
Why do you think that atheists in particular have no problem with homosexuality just because the bible is against it? How do you reconcile the fact that a majority of Catholics have no problem with it? Do you think they’re not really Christians (in which case there’s less than 50% of them left – someone should inform the Vatican).
Do you think that if a Catholic accepts anything immoral (such as contraception) then they’re not really Christian? Do you think that as a Christian or a Muslim you have to accept and obey every single interpretation of Christian or Muslin scripture?
B
Bradski
Guest
And the obvious question becomes: who decides if the law is morally legitimate?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
We’ve been through this a few times before.
I suggest listening to this
catholic.com/radio/shows/the-secular-argument-for-traditional-marriage-7967
B
Bradski
Guest
I apologise, I wasn’t being clear enough. You were talking about ‘morally legitimate laws’ (plural). When I ask: who would decide if the law is morally legitimate I am referring to law in general, not any specific law that might allow same sex marriage.
You are implying that any law that is deemed immoral is not valid. The question remains; Who makes the decision on whether any law is moral or not?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It is not a question of who, but of what: sound well-reasoned judgement.
Who makes the decision is irrelevant, except as a practical matter. What is important is that the decision is based upon sound and wise judgement.
Would you argue otherwise?
Are you claiming no one is capable of making good moral judgements?
W
wittgenstein
Guest
I am not a postmodernist. I believe in absolute moral fact. I also believe in the seperation of church and state. (Which ironically with its devotion to truth is also the official Catholic position).
Absolute moral facts that cannot be culturally derermined?
Absolute moral facts that cannot be culturally derermined?
- Morality only applies to conscious beings. A volcanoe, for example,cannot be held responsible for the people it kills by erupting.
- One cannot impose one’s will on another conscious being without that conscious being’s agreement.
Everything else is debateable. (I am not denying the idea of absolute truth,only that as mere homimids we cannot know it for sure). Therefore, I may believe that gay marriage is immoral, but do not wish it (the outlawing of gay marriage ) to be made law. To reduce morality to the absurdity of a lawyer’s reasoning is an insult to God, spirituality and our rationality!
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m sure a lot of people are. But who is your suggestion for doing this? If a law is proposed to allow same sex marriage, who ‘as a practical matter’, is to make the well-reasoned judgement as to its morality?
W
wittgenstein
Guest
See my absolute moral facts that are not culturally determined.
*
Right and wrong are not determined by personality’s.
*Right and wrong are not determined by personality’s.
- It’s better then Kant’s catagorical imperitive. Kant’s catagorical imperitive does not survive intellectual scrutiny. If Jews are hiding in my attic and the SS knocks on my door asking if there are Jews in my house…DUH the moral thing is to lie!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**And the obvious question becomes: who decides if the law is morally legitimate? **
And the obvious answer is: who decides when any law is morally legitimate?
**And the obvious question becomes: who decides if the law is morally legitimate? **
And the obvious answer is: who decides when any law is morally legitimate?
B
Bradski
Guest
Charles, that’s not an obvious answer. It’s another question. In fact, it’s the same question worded differently. I’m quite happy for you or Peter to answer either.And the obvious answer is: who decides when any law is morally legitimate?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Right. It’s another question. So why don’t you answer it?
You are aware, of course, that there is a legislative process for settling social questions and passing laws; and this process always addresses, among others things, whether a social policy does good or evil.
A government that avoids God’s moral laws, as though they had no say in the matter of governing, is hell bent on destruction, as Voltaire said in his essay on atheism.
“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).
You are aware, of course, that there is a legislative process for settling social questions and passing laws; and this process always addresses, among others things, whether a social policy does good or evil.
A government that avoids God’s moral laws, as though they had no say in the matter of governing, is hell bent on destruction, as Voltaire said in his essay on atheism.
“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Well, consider the possibilities.
IF materialism is true, there is no God - certainly not the omniscient, omnipotent God of Judaeo-Christian tradition.
If there is no God, the universe operates under its principals accidentally. That is, the only forces at work in the universe are non-sapient and work under the laws of the universe.
As near as scientists can tell us, one of these potential laws is the Big Crunch - the entire universe will implode upon itself, and everything will die, and the universe will experience another Big Bang.
If the universe, ultimately, cycles from Big Bang to Big Crunch, whatever we do achieves status quo - Big Crunch followed by Big Bang.
Therefore, if status quo is maintained regardless of what we do - if everything dies in the end and there is only one eternal consequence - an eternal looping from Big Bang to Big Crunch and back and forth - nothing ultimately may be called morally good or evil.
This is because, ultimately, no action we take has any effect at all on the status quo.
P
PRmerger
Guest
From the ??? you included in your comment it appears as if you are of the position that sex does not have to include love for it to be moral. Casual sex is fine with you, as long as it’s consenting.
Then it is curious for you to make this comment, “How “charitable” of you to call the actual love of other people “perverse”?”
Why do you assume that all lesbian sex involves “love”?
B
Bradski
Guest
Charles, it’s the same question, not another one. And this isn’t the playground. I don’t ask a question and then you say: No! You answer it first!
I’m asking it of you (and Peter) because I want to know if that laws are going to be classed as valid only if they are morally acceptable, then who arbitrates on whether they are morally acceptable?
I don’t want to prompt any reply, but you have just said:
So are you implying that for a law to be valid it must be moral in relation to God’s laws?
If that is so, it seems that the only people who can therefore decide if a law is morally acceptable or not is someone who believes in God.
If that is so, can it be anyone who believes in God’s Laws or does it have to be specifically Christian?
And if specifically Christian, does it have to be a particular denomination?
And if a particular denomination, do the people have to agree with your interpretation of scripture or not?
And if they agree with your particular interpretation of scripture on this particular matter, can they also make decisions on other matters on which you don’t agree?
Because if not, the only person left to make the decision is you.
Is the answer to the question: ‘Me’?
B
Bradski
Guest
As long as you’re not breaking any committment you’ve made to someone else, PR…
- Status