L
larkin31
Guest
No, it does not. One couples’ marriage in no way “attacks” any other couples’ marriage, and certainly in no way attacks any other group’s millions of marriages.
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
It most certainly does.
L
larkin31
Guest
You are claiming harm. So please explain how. Courts require clear evidence of damage or injury. So please give your evidence of such.
M
mcteague
Guest
As far as open mindedness, you strike me as someone who could for example engage in a conversation with someone where the first premise is there is no God and be perfectly capable of discussing the merits of their arguments without resorting to religion. I do not think your personal religious beliefs would prevent you from doing so. You could discuss the issue whatever it is withing the framework set out.
I really just thought you were asking me what I try to do to be as open minded as possible.
My rant about the risk of totalitarian tendencies in revealed religions was not really directed at you. I really should have said authoritarian. This is a bit off topic. Really my fault. I was a bit annoyed at some other post I had read here.
However there are a number of interesting questions to explore. If you think this all really belongs in a different tread let me know and I will start one. Here are some of them. There may be more
It just strikes me as a somewhat unavoidable problem that if one believes that one’s beliefs and values come from God, and that you are required to advocate for and support those views, that a certain percentage of people in that group will develop authoritarian views. How can they not. From that narrow perspective one is either on Gods side or not.
If you read some of the treads on infallibility, and also on American politics, there seems a tendency by some to associate the Catholic view into a fairly narrow perspective. And if one is inclined to treat every issue like abortion (one where there may not be much moral wiggle room from a Catholic perspective) then a certain stridentness and inflexibility leading ultimately to an authoritarian and in some cases totalitarian attitude seems unavoidable. How can this not be true for at least some Catholics?
How should we separate what an ideology or institution is from the espoused beliefs and actions of those who claim to be members or adherents? It might be true that my friends views are un-Catholic. But he calls himself one. There is a link in one of the other threads to “Catholic” website saying that sex between married persons past childbearing age is a sin. Should we simply dismiss these things as anomalies, or are we forced to recognize that the definition of what a thing is is not limited to official or academic terms.
Obviously somethings are so far removed from what a thing is they can be ignored. But where exactly is that line. I have seen many views expressed here that may not be correct in terms of exact readings of Catholic teaching. But the people espousing them call themselves devout Catholics, and would argue that their views are correct interpretations. I agree there should be a line that separates what I keep calling official views from the often mistaken beliefs of adherents. But it is hard to ignore the fact that a thing gets defined socially by both. And perhaps more so by the actions and expressed beliefs of adherents. It might not seem fair to Marxists that the general public defines communism more by what Stalin did than exclusively by what Marx wrote. But is just the reality of how societies define things.
I think there is something of a slippery sloop in reason. Or rather in the generally correct desire to be consistent in our reasoning. For example although I could not prove it historically, I would not be surprised if most of the sexually related moral teachings come from early battles trying to end the practice of exposure. It is historically accurate that that practice ended with the spread of Christianity. Now two millennium later by a process that attempts to maintain consistency in reason when approaching new similar issues we may have attitudes and prohibitions completely foreign to what original church founders may have intended. It is admirable that the Catholic has a strong academic tradition. But I wonder if sometimes the desire for consistency coupled a view of itself as the true voice of God, i.e. infallible, may send it careening down the road to places undreamed of.
A quick aside regarding your reply to the poster about virtue. Although morality and ethics actually have slightly different meanings, they are used as synonyms in common usage. I doubt one in ten thousand can really distinguish between them. So although you may be correct in your critique it might be better to address that post accepting the way the poster seems to intend the language. And no I am not saying we should not try to be accurate and just throw in the towel on reason and language percision
K
kenofken
Guest
This is where it all breaks down in their argument. In thousands of posts on a dozen plus threads I’ve seen here, no one has been able to cite any credible, concrete harm from the many countries and other jursdictions where gay unions have been allowed for years. What passes for “damning evidence” would hold up only in a kangaroo court. It’s usually variants of these:
“Gay marriage is so harmful, we can’t even speculate how harmful it might be.”
“It’s so self-evident to people of good will that we won’t waste the court’s time enumerating the harms this has caused society.”
The other avenue of argument says that marriage as an institution has never varied from mid-20th Century whitebread Norman Rockwell notions and that any institution thousands of years old cannot be deficient in any way or subject to improvement.
L
larkin31
Guest
indeed
gay marriage, or its equivalent, will become legal across this country in not too many years
it is inevitable
S
Seeker2010
Guest
Agreed. It will happen, eventually in all 50 states, and eventually it will reach a point where it’s not even given a second thought.
M
mcteague
Guest
I agree. Oneday being gay will be seen as different and important as being left handed. Hopefully it will happen in my lifetime.
L
Leela
Guest
That is a great analogy. Being left handed was also irrationally viewed by societies of the past as “unnatural” and evil.
B
Betterave
Guest
I read you on this. The same is perhaps true, to some extent, for what these others have said too, though, I imagine. Their asperity is probably partly a result of the unreasonable attacks of those on your side of the issue.
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.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but it strikes me as probably being tendentious. That said, no doubt it is true for some Catholics - but that is hardly attributable to their being Catholic. The atheists and gay-rights and pro-abortion types (including in some cases those who call themselves Catholics) obviously have their fair share of a genuinely regrettable stridentness and inflexibility.
B
Betterave
Guest
I think we should simply try to speak the truth. If people have misunderstandings, which are demonstrable as such, we shouldn’t pretend they are anything but misunderstandings. If there are certain consistent misinterpretations of the Constitution, say, we shouldn’t consider ourselves “forced to recognize that the definition of what a thing is is not limited to official or academic terms” - should we?
Sure, what you say is correct. But what should we do about it? Should we contribute to blurring the line between official views and mistaken beliefs of adherents? I think not. Where the line is intrinsically blurry, as it often is, we need to address that explicitly. (I think of Emil Fackenheim’s retort to defenders of Marxism who say that it has been misapplied in history: but one of Marxism’s basic principles is that it is impossible to transcend history - I think Marxists understand this and that is why they have had to try to reformulate Marxism. But the question then arises: when does a development or reformulation become simply a corruption of the original?)
Okay… That’s obviously all rather speculative, so I’ll leave it be.
I take it you think my critique was based on the morality/ethics distinction. It was not.
B
Betterave
Guest
A brave new world - it’s possible, certainly. (Which of course leaves certain questions unanswered.)
C
colmcille1
Guest
Brave new world indeed!
Why is it that when non-believers challenge believers about the nature of said belief, they are always anxious to hold the respondent’s answer as a definitive one?
Why is it that those who support same-sex marriage readily dismiss the belief system of 2 billion people as simply wrong?
Why do non-believers get very defensive, outraged even, when challenged about their lack of a moral code; and yet seem to find the idea of a believer’s morality so objectionable?
And, in relation to the last question, why are they so afraid?
Do they not realise that true freedom (including freedom from fear) awaits those who fully embrace Catholicism?
God Bless,
Colmcille .
B
Betterave
Guest
I should add, when I say this is possible, I don’t mean to suggest that I think that it is even slightly probable. There are far too many intelligent people who actually understand the vast difference between the cases in question for that to actually happen. Your claim here appears to be based on a thoroughly groundless conviction that someday everyone will share your point of view. Odd. I think if you tried a little harder to get to know the ‘other’ that you’re dealing with on this issue, you would cease to be at all tempted to make claims like this one.
L
Leela
Guest
It isn’t groundless. We are justified in thinking that such a future is likely to be a reality when we consider how much more acceptable homosexuality is in American culture today than it was 25 or 50 years ago.
L
larkin31
Guest
There is no historical, legal, or even moral requirement that “everyone share your point of view” for change to occur in the broadening and strengthening of justice. It will occur REGARDLESS of whether “everyone” shares the view or not.
L
larkin31
Guest
“sinister” even!
B
Betterave
Guest
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.)
B
Betterave
Guest
].
Wow, ya think? Thanks, Captain Obvious!
More to the point, it MAY occur REGARDLESS of whether OR NOT it is a genuine strengthening of justice.
or simply ‘gauche’
L
larkin31
Guest
- Status