Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[larkin31]

LOL! No, it’s still groundless! For some people it is enough to point out the obvious to them and they get it. Others, not so much. I’ll see what mcteague has to say before saying any more than that. (He may be less inclined to ignore the obvious than you.)

All you are doing now is stating “You are stupid” in other snide and smarmy terms. When when calls disagreement “ignoring the obvious,” it becomes clear that any valuable and mature dialogue is over.

 

[Betterave]

Well, interesting.

No, perfectly banal actually.

Thus your point was incorrect AND irrelevant.

LOL! Which point would that be? Why do you think it is “incorrect AND irrelevant”?

 

[Betterave]

All you are doing now is stating “You are stupid” in other snide and smarmy terms. When when calls disagreement “ignoring the obvious,” it becomes clear that any valuable and mature dialogue is over.

larkin, you would do well to read some of mcteague’s posts on the nature of (fruitful) dialogue and to reflect on them. Leela is not necessarily *stupid *for failing to notice the obvious. She may simply be closed-minded or tired or stubborn or not paying attention for some other reason. Same goes for you. That said, I’ll again let mcteague respond before saying anything beyond that.

 

[larkin31]

larkin, you would do well to read some of mcteague’s posts on the nature of (fruitful) dialogue and to reflect on them. Leela is not necessarily *stupid *for failing to notice the obvious. She may simply be closed-minded or tired or stubborn or not paying attention for some other reason. Same goes for you. That said, I’ll again let mcteague respond before saying anything beyond that.

And not you? Why, when speaking of the possibility of error, would you leave yourself off the list of those who may be stubborn, closeminded, tired, not paying attention, or just plain wrong?

I admit many times here that I might be wrong. But I try hard and ALWAYS give my reasoning. Then I get accused of being obtuse (or Satanic) simply for disagreeing. And from you, the accusation is haughty and hypocritical. A flaw I often see here in the most self-righteous.

 

[larkin31]

No, perfectly banal actually.

LOL! Which point would that be? Why do you think it is “incorrect AND irrelevant”?

I ALREADY GAVE the reason. You are either tired, closeminded, stubborn, tired, or just skipping it for some other reason.

But then, as you say, might this not be true for each of us? Do you exempt yourself?

 

[Seeker2010]

I should add, when I say this is possible, I don’t mean to suggest that I think that it is even slightly probable.

It’s not only probable, indeed it’s inevitable.

When my grandfather was my age, homosexuals stayed in the closet, or paid dearly for being open. Gay marriage?? Please, wasn’t even an idea.

When my father was my age, they were more free to live openly, but the marriage thing was too ridiculous to even discuss.

Today, gays can pretty much live in the open, except for military personnel. Gay marriage is controversial, but it’s being discussed, and slowly but surely is becoming more accepted.

By the time a child born today is my age, they likely won’t even realize it was once controversial, and their children will never know a world where gay marriage did not exist.

It will happen. It IS happening.

Sorry.

Well, not really.

 

[kenofken]

It’s not only probable, indeed it’s inevitable.

When my grandfather was my age, homosexuals stayed in the closet, or paid dearly for being open. Gay marriage?? Please, wasn’t even an idea.

When my father was my age, they were more free to live openly, but the marriage thing was too ridiculous to even discuss.

Today, gays can pretty much live in the open, except for military personnel. Gay marriage is controversial, but it’s being discussed, and slowly but surely is becoming more accepted.

By the time a child born today is my age, they likely won’t even realize it was once controversial, and their children will never know a world where gay marriage did not exist.

It will happen. It IS happening.

Sorry.

Well, not really.

It will happen because most people under 40 just aren’t that excited about the issue, and for those under 25, it’s an absolute non-issue.

 

[mcteague]

What most people fail to realize is that reference to ‘God’ is completely accidental here. I hope you can realize that people are inclined to ‘authoritarian’, or even ‘totalitarian’ views simply insofar as they are people. ‘God’ and ‘reason’ are in fact more or less interchangeable for many intents and purposes. Try reading ‘reason’ for ‘God’ in what you have written above and tell me if that makes sense to you.

We agree on this. This was one of my objections to the “if you believe in God you’re an idiot” threat. Oh sorry I mean the “Matrix” threat. Not your position, but the OP and some others.
It is not the particular belief that is the issue, but rather the relationship between the believer and what is believed. Again though this a double edged sword. Extreme commitment or faith can be good and bad.

 

[colmcille1]

It is not the particular belief that is the issue, but rather the relationship between the believer and what is believed. Again though this a double edged sword. Extreme commitment or faith can be good and bad.

Hi mcteague,
You make a good point here.
I think, though, that the criteria for measuring said Faith extremes are rock solid. This is where the much-valued self-examination of conscience comes into play. Some folks operate out of fear of what a close scrutiny of self will reveal. Nevertheless, true informed conscience has its own “double-edged sword”, so to speak. And both sides are complementary: the private and the public.
One poster stated that this is a non-issue for under-25s. I disagree. I think it is an issue but it is not necessarily looked at from a Catholic POV. This does not make it more valid.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[larkin31]

It will happen because most people under 40 just aren’t that excited about the issue, and for those under 25, it’s an absolute non-issue.

And more and more persons practice similar forms of loving and sex as gays and find that their love for each other does not diminish, that the sky does not fall, that Gomorrah does not burn. The world, rather, keeps turning, the neighbors are unaffected, and the daily bread must be earned.

 

[davidv]

And more and more persons practice similar forms of loving and sex as gays and find that their love for each other does not diminish, that the sky does not fall, that Gomorrah does not burn.

Are you sure? What is the state of their souls?

The world, rather, keeps turning, the neighbors are unaffected,

How do you know they are unaffected?

and the daily bread must be earned.

One does not need to stoop to immorality to accomplish this.

 

[larkin31]

Are you sure? What is the state of their souls?

They seem to be thriving and happy. There is no such thing as a soul in the supernatural sense. Consensual loving sex of any one form tends not to harm the psyche of the participating individuals any more than another particular kind does.

How do you know they are unaffected?

My actions don’t affect there psyches.

One does not need to stoop to immorality to accomplish this.

No one claimed that going to work had anything to do with private sexuality. I have no idea why you wrote this.

 

[davidv]

They seem to be thriving and happy.

So, all is as it “appears”?

There is no such thing as a soul in the supernatural sense.

Yeh? And you know this how?

Consensual loving sex of any one form tends not to harm the psyche of the participating individuals any more than another particular kind does.

My actions don’t affect there psyches.

How would you know?

No one claimed that going to work had anything to do with private sexuality. I have no idea why you wrote this.

Then, what did you mean by this?:

larkin31:

and the daily bread must be earned.

Seem to me you are just making up this stuff as you go.

 

[mcteague]

LOL! No, it’s still groundless! For some people it is enough to point out the obvious to them and they get it. Others, not so much. I’ll see what mcteague has to say before saying any more than that. (He may be less inclined to ignore the obvious than you.)

Oops, I feel like I walked into a pop quiz and forgot to read last nights assignment. I actually hate arguments that are stated as obvious. It immediately calls the intelligence of the other party into question. But if you have ever been with someone and said " Hey look at that" and they stared into space asking, “what what”, you know that sometimes things are not obvious to others even if they are clear to us.

An old friend once criticized me for making arguments based on analogy. He said it was the weakest form of argument. He may be right. But I think it is how people often think. How is one thing the same or different than another. Although I think the analogy to left handedness is a reasonable speculation of what may happen in time; there are still differences between that and homosexuality. It not really an historically correct analogy as far as the Catholic church goes. Rumors of the suppression of left handed people by the Church are not particularly accurate. I do think that eventually sexual orientation will have less and less significance for the general public.

This will remain a difficult area for the Church. Once it has taken a stance on an issue it is often very difficult to change or withdraw it, even if it would like to. And I am not saying it will ever want to. But certain characteristics of the institution make that sort of thing quite difficult… There will probably always be a large number of Catholics opposed to gay marriage for whatever their reasons may be. Only some of them will be motivated by homophobia. The majority are just trying to be what they think of as good Catholics.

Although I am satisfied with the analogy as a sentiment, I can criticize myself on the following basis. Left-handedness is established by genetics. Homosexuality may in part be also, probably not for all participating in those activities. I have never liked the genetic defense of homosexuality because it presumes that it is something that needs to be defended. I do not think it does. But it is equally wrong to says that it is never an indication of a problem. Sometimes it is.

 

[larkin31]

So, all is as it “appears”?

Yeh? And you know this how?

How would you know?

Then, what did you mean by this?:

Seem to me you are just making up this stuff as you go.

You no longer have a point on the topic. It “seems” (because, as you well know this word means, I cannot actually see inside your head, but indications are clear) you are simply asking me how I know that my neighbors don’t care what kind of sex I have privately with my wife. If they do care, they have certainly never asked, never seen, never commented on it. And that the sky has not fallen and that Gomorrah has not burned from the increase in sexual methods (40% of heteros try anal sex these days, according to the CDC) is all pretty obvious to us all.

 

[Betterave]

Oops, I feel like I walked into a pop quiz and forgot to read last nights assignment. I actually hate arguments that are stated as obvious. It immediately calls the intelligence of the other party into question. But if you have ever been with someone and said " Hey look at that" and they stared into space asking, “what what”, you know that sometimes things are not obvious to others even if they are clear to us.

You may hate arguments invoking “the obvious”, but that is a personal foible perhaps. I think you have correctly identified a couple of perfectly obvious points below which make the disanalogy of your analogy quite clear.

Seeker and larkin, on the other hand, invoke some perfectly obvious sociological facts and go on to make perfectly un-obvious (i.e., wild, implausible) prognostications, as your original analogy did. I think this chafing against the obvious is obvious, and obviously important to note and to reflect upon as indicative of the general intellectual approach of these individuals. …Not that they’re necessarily interested in that, but the need and the opportunity for self-examination are there (to which larkin will probably be inclined to retort, “tu quoque!”).

An old friend once criticized me for making arguments based on analogy. He said it was the weakest form of argument. He may be right. But I think it is how people often think. How is one thing the same or different than another. Although I think the analogy to left handedness is a reasonable speculation of what may happen in time; there are still differences between that and homosexuality. It not really an historically correct analogy as far as the Catholic church goes. Rumors of the suppression of left handed people by the Church are not particularly accurate. I do think that eventually sexual orientation will have less and less significance for the general public.

I love analogies, just not bad ones. I certainly don’t agree that they’re an intrinsically weaker form of argument.

This will remain a difficult area for the Church. Once it has taken a stance on an issue it is often very difficult to change or withdraw it, even if it would like to. And I am not saying it will ever want to. But certain characteristics of the institution make that sort of thing quite difficult… There will probably always be a large number of Catholics opposed to gay marriage for whatever their reasons may be. Only some of them will be motivated by homophobia. The majority are just trying to be what they think of as good Catholics.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a majority or not. It’s whether they actually are being “good Catholics” or not. And whether you want to face the fact or not, the Church’s position is not based on some historical accident of having taken a stance, and now not being able to back down for institutional reasons.

Although I am satisfied with the analogy as a sentiment, I can criticize myself on the following basis. Left-handedness is established by genetics. Homosexuality may in part be also, probably not for all participating in those activities. I have never liked the genetic defense of homosexuality because it presumes that it is something that needs to be defended. I do not think it does. But it is equally wrong to says that it is never an indication of a problem. Sometimes it is.

The other obvious problem with the genetic defense is that it is a complete non-starter argumentatively. It is a complete ignoratio elenchi, a failure to understand what counts as a relevant argument in ethics.