Thoughts on the gay cake case

[Rau]

It says what I said: sexual sins are not mortal a majority of the time. According to Paul VI’s decree at least

It doesn’t state or imply “a majority of the time”. It says more “it more easily happens”. And take special note of the last sentence I extracted.

If there is text somewhere else in the document that talks about “most of the time”, please point it out.

I further point out that the issue of “responsibility” goes to the question of culpability, not morality. For those thinking that homosexual acts might somehow get a nod, that is a serious logical error - the nod can only be given if the act is not immoral.

 

[minkymurph]

Why are religious beliefs consigned to the “privacy of their homes, temples, churches or synagogues,” but atheistic beliefs have the run of the town? Since when did 3-5% of the population get to dictate where and when 95-97% of the population think about things they want to think about or express ideas they want to express.

Consigning religious beliefs to the home, temple, church etc. is tantamount to marginalizing religious beliefs which is undemocratic. Democracy cannot allow for any group to dictate - another posted coined the phrase ‘the tyranny of the majority.’

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion means the freedom to express that thought and conscience openly - as those who disagree are free to express it. As someone once said, I may disagree with what you say but I would defend your right to say it.

It’s not like expressing a religious belief in public is actually harming someone, is it? I thought harm was the cut-off point. If no one is being harmed we shouldn’t restrict the freedom of those who are merely different than ourselves. Yet, here you are advocating shutting away the religious views of a majority of people and restricting their freedom of expression even though they are not harming anyone.

What you are stating is the harm principle and it is a useful analysis. That principle would include expressing views, religious or otherwise in a manner that insights hatred. Individuals should not be free to insight hatred towards other individuals or groups.

Interesting, I recently had cause to read the humanist manifesto and to me, it is synonymous with the Beatitudes. Thus, opposing groups can find common ground.

Where is this blind justice woman you speak so highly of when we need her? I am not clear that she wields the sword “blindly” after all. It seems some factions get “more equal” treatment than others quite regularly. Not so neutral after all, it seems.

In theory Justice should be ‘blind’ but in practice it is not, I would argue neither should it be. Justice should be non-arbitrary and that means leveling the playing field. To explain, the ‘reasonable man’ test has on many occasions required review as is everyone was judged as a ‘reasonable man’ it would lead to arbitrary and bizarre decisions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What you are stating is the harm principle and it is a useful analysis. That principle would include expressing views, religious or otherwise in a manner that insights hatred. Individuals should not be free to insight hatred towards other individuals or groups.

Interesting, I recently had cause to read the humanist manifesto and to me, it is synonymous with the Beatitudes. Thus, opposing groups can find common ground.

Well, no. What you are describing is the appearance of common ground. In reality, atheism and Christianity have completely different conceptions of what man is and in what the crucial good for man consists.

This may not seem important, but Christianity sees the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God as determining the destiny of human beings. That means life on earth is merely a foreshadow (if even that; “eye has not seen, ear has not heard”) of what human beings are to become if we cooperate with God’s plan for us.

Atheistic humanism, on the other hand, completely discounts the higher destiny for humanity, making survival and pleasure the ultimate goods. Now if secular humanists are wrong, then they thwart themselves and, possibly, other human beings from achieving a supernatural destiny by their insistence that “religious beliefs” not be permitted to filter into the marketplace of ideas. Yet, they make no positive case that such a destiny is not true or does not exist. They do take a negative position that they “are not convinced,” but neither is their notion - that NO God exists - very convincing.

CS Lewis does a masterful job in Man or Rabbit? debunking the idea that humans can be “good” without God. They may claim to be “good” according to their own idea of it, but if God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent then his idea of what “good” entails for humanity is exponentially far greater/higher than the secular humanist’s notion. In fact, if the secular humanist’s notion blocks or opposes God’s plan, the secular notion could be positively harmful to ultimate human good because it would do determinable “harm” to the far higher destiny that is reserved for humanity.

Cf. youtu.be/X9fR1vSxNEQu

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Then the question becomes why should the state subsidize so-called gay “marriage”? Where is the benefit to the state?

Subsidize? Do the gay people receive a special gift from the state, which is denied to the heterosexual couples?

Laws simply by existing discriminate.

They limit some freedoms, for sure. But that is not discrimination. The laws may be enforced in a discriminatory fashion, but that is the problem with the enforcement procedure, not the law itself. As the rather sarcastic remark pointed out: “The law, it is majestic impartiality equally prohibits the rich and poor to sleep under the bridges”.

It sounds to me like there is. :yup:

I cannot help your misconceptions.

Ah, yes! One of my favs! The “you’re out of touch, too old-fashioned” argument.

No, that is not true either. The “everything goes, totally free market” never existed. It is just a pipe-dream of anarchists.

The Catholic Church has the Truth, and why would anyone be surprised that we declare or imply that the Catholic Church is the One, True Faith on a Catholic website of all places!

Now, if only that would be more than a self-authentication, I would be most happy to see the rational arguments for it, and if those arguments would be compelling, I would accept the conclusion.

Funny, some Catholics may not feel the same way.

How they feel is their problem. But please let me know the address of the arena and the time when Catholics will be fed to lions. I will come and organize a posse to free them before such a barbaric act could be performed.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Why are religious beliefs consigned to the “privacy of their homes, temples, churches or synagogues,” but atheistic beliefs have the run of the town? Since when did 3-5% of the population get to dictate where and when 95-97% of the population think about things they want to think about or express ideas they want to express.

Any cheap shot will do to move the goalposts, eh? You are free to organize a march and loudly proclaim that you wish to discriminate against those faggots. Just like the KKK is free to have their hate-marches, so can you. The ACLU will come to your rescue if someone wishes to prevent your marches.

It’s not like expressing a religious belief in public is actually harming someone, is it? I thought harm was the cut-off point. If no one is being harmed we shouldn’t restrict the freedom of those who are merely different than ourselves. Yet, here you are advocating shutting away the religious views of a majority of people and restricting their freedom of expression even though they are not harming anyone.

As long as they simply advocate their views, they are very welcome to do it. Of course, you will not be allowed to act on those views, just like the KKK is not allowed to lynch the blacks any more.

Which is it, then? People should be free to say and do things you disagree with or not? If not, why should, religious expression be arbitrarily limited but atheistic expression not?

Say - yes; do - NO. There is no such thing as atheistic expression. We live in secular state, where every religious and non-religious view gets equal protection. Now, it may seem to you that the secular view is getting special treatment, but that is not true. The US is a fully secular state as expressed in the Treaty of Tripoli.

Is it because some people are offended by religious ideas or actions?

As long as your actions do not punch other people in the face, you can even act on them.

Well, a greater number could conceivably be offended by secular ideas and actions.

If that would be the case, please exercise your right at the ballot box to vote against it. You may believe that you are the majority, but when push comes to shove, it looks like that your kind of ultra-orthodox crowd is getting marginalized rather quickly, as the newest events in Ireland show so clearly.

Even if you would be a minority of one, you would (and should) be free to hold any value you wish. You just would not be allowed to act on some of those views. But in a constitutional republic not even the majority is allowed to act on certain views.

 

[minkymurph]

Well, no. What you are describing is the appearance of common ground. In reality, atheism and Christianity have completely different conceptions of what man is and in what the crucial good for man consists.

This may not seem important, but Christianity sees the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God as determining the destiny of human beings. That means life on earth is merely a foreshadow (if even that; “eye has not seen, ear has not heard”) of what human beings are to become if we cooperate with God’s plan for us.

Atheistic humanism, on the other hand, completely discounts the higher destiny for humanity, making survival and pleasure the ultimate goods. Now if secular humanists are wrong, then they thwart themselves and, possibly, other human beings from achieving a supernatural destiny by their insistence that “religious beliefs” not be permitted to filter into the marketplace of ideas. Yet, they make no positive case that such a destiny is not true or does not exist. They do take a negative position that they “are not convinced,” but neither is their notion - that NO God exists - very convincing.

CS Lewis does a masterful job in Man or Rabbit? debunking the idea that humans can be “good” without God. They may claim to be “good” according to their own idea of it, but if God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent then his idea of what “good” entails for humanity is exponentially far greater/higher than the secular humanist’s notion. In fact, if the secular humanist’s notion blocks or opposes God’s plan, the secular notion could be positively harmful to ultimate human good because it would do determinable “harm” to the far higher destiny that is reserved for humanity.

Cf. youtu.be/X9fR1vSxNEQu

So are you saying atheists and specifically Christians cannot find common ground on anything?

 

[PRmerger]

Any cheap shot will do to move the goalposts, eh? You are free to organize a march and loudly proclaim that you wish to discriminate against those faggots.

Careful, Pallas. As I’ve mentioned before-it is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

But you are treading in dangerous waters here.

No one here who disagrees with your view on homosexuality has even come close to asserting any kind of pejorative towards homosexuals.

So I’d be more judicious about trying to represent our position a bit better in the future.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This may not seem important, but Christianity sees the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God as determining the destiny of human beings. That means life on earth is merely a foreshadow (if even that; “eye has not seen, ear has not heard”) of what human beings are to become if we cooperate with God’s plan for us.

As soon as you will be able to present actual, rational arguments for the existence of God, and for the existence of that “plan” for us, you will be taken seriously. But not until then. Here is a short summary of what transpires in a dialog:

Catholic: The Catholic church has the full “Truth ™”, everyone else is at least partially mistaken.
Skeptic: How do you know that?
Catholic: The church declared it.
Skeptic: Aha. So how do you know that the church is correct?
Catholic: As I said, the church declared it.
Skeptic: That is circular reasoning.
Catholic: Well, the Holy Scriptures also say it.
Skeptic: Where do the Holy Scriptures come from?
Catholic: The Bible is a collection of divinely inspired writings.
Skeptic: Says who?
Catholic: The church says so.
Skeptic: And who decided which writings should be included?
Catholic: That is obvious… the church did.
Skeptic: This is still circular reasoning.
Catholic: Well, we also know that Jesus founded the Catholic church.
Skeptic: How do we know that?
Catholic: The Bible and the Magisterium say it.
Skeptic: And why do you accept the Magisterium?
Catholic: The Magisterium is infallible when it comes to the question of faith and morals.
Skeptic: I am sorry, but how do you know that?
Catholic: The Magisterium said so.
Skeptic: Ok. Let’s summarize. The Catholic church is the ultimate authority, because the Church infallibly declared that the infallible Church is the ultimate authority. It is supplanted by the Bible, which was collected by the Church. It is also declared to be true by the Magisterium, which is infallible - according to the Magisterium.
Catholic: Looks like you finally get it!
Skeptic: But all that is still circular reasoning!

Dogbert (from the sidelines): I would prefer to say that there are no loose ends.

I am sorry if this summary rubs you in the wrong way. You may say that this is a “caricature”. But remember, a caricature is supposed to emphasize the most important features of a person, or a proposition. It may be a “distortion”, but that distortion makes the features even more recognizable.

But what I presented is not a caricature. It is the summary of what the apologists say - even if they are not fully aware what they say. I did not present this summary to hurt anyone. The aim is to present a clear picture, to show that there is no external verification of what you believe. It is all self-authentication. Of course you are most welcome to believe what you say. Just don’t be under the mistaken impression that your belief will be taken as evidence. It is pure, unadulterated “faith”. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just don’t confuse it with reason and do not confuse your beliefs with evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

As soon as you will be able to present actual, rational arguments for the existence of God,

Here’s 20.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No one here who disagrees with your view on homosexuality has even come close to asserting any kind of pejorative towards homosexuals.

You are right. No one here has said it. But actions speak louder than words, don’t they? And I do not generalize. Some people are quite tolerant towards the homosexuals in general, but not tolerant toward what they do in the privacy of their home.

Here’s 20.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

Thank you. I am quite familiar with them. They are even less convincing than Aquinas’ Five ways.

 

[PRmerger]

You may say that this is a “caricature”. But remember, a caricature is supposed to emphasize the most important features of a person, or a proposition. It may be a “distortion”, but that distortion makes the features even more recognizable.

But what I presented is not a caricature. It is the summary of what the apologists say - even if they are not fully aware what they say.

It is clear that you have not actually considered what the apologists say.

It is no more a summary of the Catholic’s apologia for God’s existence than this is a summary for why atheists deny God’s existence:

Catholic: why do you not believe in God’s existence
Atheist: Because your god says people should be happy. People are clearly sad. Therefore god doesn’t exist. Bam! Case closed!

 

[Peter_Plato]

Any cheap shot will do to move the goalposts, eh? You are free to organize a march and loudly proclaim that you wish to discriminate against those faggots. Just like the KKK is free to have their hate-marches, so can you. The ACLU will come to your rescue if someone wishes to prevent your marches.

Speaking of “cheap shots,” you have several times, misrepresented my views.

The question of discrimination “against those faggots” is an example of you not merely moving the goalposts by creating a target of my “discrimination” that does not fit my actual views but seeks to “nastify” and denigrate those views by misrepresenting them.

This isn’t about hate although all judgements are about discrimination. Allowing only leashed dogs in the street is discrimination in the sense it discriminates between dogs and human beings (who are not required to be leashed when going out onto the street.)

Now, of course, you will misrepresent this point by falsely claiming that I am advocating that gays are akin to dogs - which isn’t the point at all. The point is that relevant differences ought to be taken into account when making distinctions between who or what are accorded certain rights.

The fact that marriage has to be completely redefined and its meaning/significance in human society and totally revised in order to accommodate what gay couples bring to “marriage,” is telling. The point is that a serious consideration of marriage always has been simply is inconsistent with what gay relationships claim to be about. This isn’t “discrimination” in any meaningful sense, it is a profound disagreement about what marriage essentially is. That disagreement is ingrained in profound differences that exist surrounding what is good for human society.

That you seek to misrepresent those who oppose your point of view as demonstrating hatred or prejudice shows that rather than being fair-minded on the issue and really trying to understand the other point of view you merely seek to vilify and disparage it. This is pretty clear from your posts and how you respond when faced with points that severely challenge the alleged rightness of your points.

Also, the fact that you shelter behind “the majority” view as if having numbers on your side makes you right is short-sighted and may prove to be false assurance. Masses are often very easy to manipulate. Clearly, given the way the Irish vote was orchestrated and the way in which the media has been marshaled in modern western societies a great deal of social manipulation is occurring.

 

[minkymurph]

You are right. No one here has said it. But actions speak louder than words, don’t they? And I do not generalize. Some people are quite tolerant towards the homosexuals in general, but not tolerant toward what they do in the privacy of their home.

Do we need to be tolerant to what people do in the privacy of their own homes?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You are right. No one here has said it. But actions speak louder than words, don’t they?

What “actions” are you speaking of? Have you seen particular actions that speak louder than words on these fora? Perhaps you regard advocating for the stability of marriage as an institution based upon biological realities to be examples of those particularly pernicious “actions?”

And I do not generalize. Some people are quite tolerant towards the homosexuals in general, but not tolerant toward what they do in the privacy of their home.

But you see this isn’t about what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes. It is about compelling others to view what homosexuals do “in the privacy of their own homes” as morally right and good. It is also about persecuting individuals who take a different view from some homosexuals with regard what constitutes marriage and how marriage ties into the welfare of children and future generations. It is also about coercive force being used to make views that disagree with the “acceptable” one disappear.

Thank you. I am quite familiar with them. They are even less convincing than Aquinas’ Five ways.

That may say more about you and what convinces you than it does about the Five Ways. There are and have been brighter minds and more resolute thinkers than you who have found them convincing.

The fact that you are skeptical about everything that you simply don’t agree with doesn’t amount to rational grounds for dismissing the Five Ways. The further fact that you can’t mount compelling reasons for actually dismissing the Five Ways beyond “I don’t find them convincing,” is, itself, not very convincing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do we need to be tolerant to what people do in the privacy of their own homes?

Of course we wouldn’t need to be because we wouldn’t even be aware of what was being done there, unless it had public repercussions. How would anyone know what homosexuals do “in the privacy of their own homes” unless those people are bound and determined to gain public approval, which is why there is persecution and coercion not to merely make it a public matter but to make it a publicly endorsed matter.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is clear that you have not actually considered what the apologists say.

Their starting point is already incorrect. They say that the church is infallible in certain matters… and there is no outside evidence for it. There is only a self-authenticating proclamation.

It is no more a summary of the Catholic’s apologia for God’s existence than this is a summary for why atheists deny God’s existence:

We never even got to the point of God’s existence. I am simply pointing out that there is no outside evidence for the church’s proclamation.

Besides most atheists do not deny God’s existence, they simply point out that God is an undefined entity.

Catholic: why do you not believe in God’s existence
Atheist: Because your god says people should be happy. People are clearly sad. Therefore god doesn’t exist. Bam! Case closed!

Well, that is not how the dialog plays out.
Catholic: why do you not believe in God’s existence.
Atheist: Because I see no evidence for it. Moreover some of the attributes of God, namely the omnimax attributes are not even defined in a rigorous, precise manner.

 

[minkymurph]

Of course we wouldn’t need to be because we wouldn’t even be aware of what was being done there, unless it had public repercussions. How would anyone know what homosexuals do “in the privacy of their own homes” unless those people are bound and determined to gain public approval, which is why there is persecution and coercion not to merely make it a public matter but to make it a publicly endorsed matter.

I would be of the same mind, in that we don’t need to know what people do in the privacy of their won home unless it has public repercussions.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The question of discrimination “against those faggots” is an example of you not merely moving the goalposts by creating a target of my “discrimination” that does not fit my actual views but seeks to “nastify” and denigrate those views by misrepresenting them.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. This whole side track initiated when you (or one of your brethren) claimed that Catholics are afraid that they will be “fed to the lions”. I simply pointed out that even the most outrageous beliefs must be tolerated as long as they are not acted upon to the detriment of others.

This isn’t about hate although all judgements are about discrimination.

Of course not all Catholics “hate” gays, but quite a few of them do… and their hatred also must be tolerated (usual disclaimer). Though the phrase “hate the sin, but love the sinner” is preposterous. To claim to love someone, but hate what they do is ridiculous. People cannot be separated from their actions.

The point is that relevant differences ought to be taken into account when making distinctions between who or what are accorded certain rights.

That is simply trivial. The question is what are those “relevant” differences.

The fact that marriage has to be completely redefined and its meaning/significance in human society and totally revised in order to accommodate what gay couples bring to “marriage,” is telling. The point is that a serious consideration of marriage always has been simply is inconsistent with what gay relationships claim to be about. This isn’t “discrimination” in any meaningful sense, it is a profound disagreement about what marriage essentially is. That disagreement is ingrained in profound differences that exist surrounding what is good for human society.

Marriage - as we know it TODAY - is quite young. Not a long time ago almost all marriages were arranged, based upon fiscal and power considerations. In the “higher” classes the preservation of power and wealth were the guiding lines, for the poor people the fecundity of the women was of prime importance, since most children died in infancy or a young age, and an ample supply of them was needed to maintain the workforce. Just read up on the “wonderful” Victorian era where children worked 14 hours a day. Where the chimney-sweepers sent slim, young children into the still hot chimneys, and if they could not tolerate the burning hot environment, there were other ones who were available.

Yes, due to technology, we do not need that many underpaid children in the workforce. Today the procreation is left to the individual couples, who do NOT need or want many children to survive in their old age.

The reproductive aspect of marriage is much less important than it used to be. Today the quality of life is in the focus. Fewer or no children is the norm in the industrialized societies. That is what is reflected in the evolution of marriage. You cannot point to any real disadvantage that the gay marriage brings. Look at the neighborhoods which are occupied by homosexual couples. They are clean, friendly and prosperous.

Also, the fact that you shelter behind “the majority” view as if having numbers on your side makes you right is short-sighted and may prove to be false assurance. Masses are often very easy to manipulate. Clearly, given the way the Irish vote was orchestrated and the way in which the media has been marshaled in modern western societies a great deal of social manipulation is occurring.

Ah, so you believe that the “unwashed” masses are so easy to manipulate? Maybe they grew up and do not swallow the propaganda of your side any more…

 

[PRmerger]

Their starting point is already incorrect. They say that the church is infallible in certain matters… and there is no outside evidence for it. There is only a self-authenticating proclamation.

Perhaps if you could articulate the Catholic’s apologia for infallibility first.

Right now it appears as if you don’t understand the arguments the Church presents for infallibility.

After you correctly articulate the Church’s position, then we can chat.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Do we need to be tolerant to what people do in the privacy of their own homes?

If they secretly build weapons, then “no”. But if they simply engage in non-harmful activity, then “yes”. It is just the good, old “live and let live” principle.