Virginity and marriage.

[SilverShadow22]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I hear that said often, but looking at the Bible, the teachings and structure of the Catholic church, and the treatment of women in predominantly Catholic countries, I’m unconvinced.

Again, everyone should have the right and recourse to protect themselves.

You must have mistaken us for Protestants. We don’t do ‘Bible alone’

Unless you thoroughly look through the catechism, you can’t really know what the Church teaches. You can’t go by what people THINK it says, and you can’t take the behavior of everyone claiming to be Catholic as definitive of the teaching, either.

Or shall I go find the nastiest, man-hating, vengeful shrew I can dig up, and when she says ‘I’m a feminist’, say, see? I proved this is what feminism is.

ETA: of course you disagree, nor did I expect anything else. If you believed this was the best religion, you’d be in it.

 

[Xantippe]

Obviously this country is in a mess because a whole lot of people claiming to follow Jesus…don’t. I am saying we had a perfectly good ideology that says beating and abusing and lying and cheating and stealing are wrong. We did NOT ‘need’ feminism to tell us these things, nor did we ‘need’ it to instigate any needed reforms. We needed Catholics to act like Catholics and address these problems. Because, surprise, the Church advocates good things without the bad things thrown in.

And I would point out that while I am NOT an anarchist, something being illegal doesn’t actually stop it. One could argue that in a lot of cases, it barely deters it. Look at how rampant drug use is even though it’s very illegal and vigorously prosecuted.

**Wife-beating has been illegal for as long as assault has been illegal… **And making a new law isn’t the only, let alone the best, way of stopping something. The best way of stopping something is to get people to see why it shouldn’t be done.

And my point is that we didn’t ‘need’ feminism to do that. In fact, it could be argued that feminism has made a lot of things worse by increasing distrust and dislike between the sexes. Now we have a ‘us vs them’ mentality on every side and everybody is trying to hit harder than everyone else.

Maybe we should have focused on the (Christian) Golden Rule, if not the Great Commandment?

BEL, you’re the lawyer, any thoughts?

SilverShadow22, I think BEL has a very good case that the argument for having a law against abortion is essentially the same argument as that for having a law against wife beating or child abuse–the idea being that the law is a teacher, and that people often take moral cues from legality or illegality.

I agree with BEL that you are on very shaky logical ground if you think that a) there ought to be a law against abortion and b) there didn’t need to be a law against domestic violence or child abuse–you’d have better logic if you argued that all need to be illegal or none of them need to be illegal. There are are interesting similarities, these are all events that occur within what is normally the personal/domestic zone of privacy, and intervening in any of them might be seen as a violation of family privacy and autonomy.

 

[LethalMouse]

That’s not what you said. You said that women don’t need legal recourse because Christianity would keep them from being cruely treated.

Heck, by your logic there’s no reason to outlaw abortion because Christianity us opposed to it.

Christianity or not, everyone deserves to be able to protect themselves from those who would harm them.

Actually almost no one ever says this, she didn’t, I didn’t HECK Even most of the wierd Red Pill guys don’t go this far.

This is just what YOU say they said to anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You must have mistaken us for Protestants. We don’t do ‘Bible alone’

Unless you thoroughly look through the catechism, you can’t really know what the Church teaches. You can’t go by what people THINK it says, and you can’t take the behavior of everyone claiming to be Catholic as definitive of the teaching, either.

Or shall I go find the nastiest, man-hating, vengeful shrew I can dig up, and when she says ‘I’m a feminist’, say, see? I proved this is what feminism is.

ETA: of course you disagree, nor did I expect anything else. If you believed this was the best religion, you’d be in it.

I am very familiar with Catholic teaching. The total and complete lack of women in leadership again tells me what I need to know. And when you look at nations that are very Catholic like Brazil and Mexico, you’ll find that women are treated poorly in both public and family life.

And no, domestic abuse has NOT always been illegal. Neither has martial rape or child abuse. It was a state by state effort.

And again, I dont see a battle of the sexes playing out in real life. And even if one did break out and it was due to domestic abuse laws, then maybe it needed to happen.

 

[SilverShadow22]

BEL, you’re the lawyer, any thoughts?

SilverShadow22, I think BEL has a very good case that the argument for having a law against abortion is essentially the same argument as that for having a law against wife beating or child abuse–the idea being that the law is a teacher, and that people often take moral cues from legality or illegality.

I agree with BEL that you are on very shaky logical ground if you think that a) there ought to be a law against abortion and b) there didn’t need to be a law against domestic violence or child abuse–you’d have better logic if you argued that all need to be illegal or none of them need to be illegal. There are are interesting similarities, these are all events that occur within what is normally the personal/domestic zone of privacy, and intervening in any of them might be seen as a violation of family privacy and autonomy.

I nowhere said these things shouldn’t be illegal! Both abuse and abortion - which is MURDER - should be illegal!

What are you talking about? All I said was that in ANY case mere illegality is NOT the whole picture of stopping something.

And any abuse is assault, and assault is illegal. If you’re trying to say domestic abuse was not considered assault in some times or places then THAT was the problem and THAT is what needed fixed which AGAIN is a change in PEOPLE and how they see definitions of acceptable behavior.

 

[SilverShadow22]

I am very familiar with Catholic teaching. The total and complete lack of women in leadership again tells me what I need to know. And when you look at nations that are very Catholic like Brazil and Mexico, you’ll find that women are treated poorly in both public and family life.

And no, domestic abuse has NOT always been illegal. Neither has martial rape or child abuse. It was a state by state effort.

And again, I dont see a battle of the sexes playing out in real life. And even if one did break out and it was due to domestic abuse laws, then maybe it needed to happen.

No it doesn’t tell you all you need to know, or you’d understand it. Not having women in leadership is not de facto sexest and as a woman it doesn’t bother me a bit and shouldn’t bother you. I doubt you’re saying that if women were bishops you’d be Catholic, either.

 

[LethalMouse]

BEL, you’re the lawyer, any thoughts?

SilverShadow22, I think BEL has a very good case that the argument for having a law against abortion is essentially the same argument as that for having a law against wife beating or child abuse–the idea being that the law is a teacher, and that people often take moral cues from legality or illegality.

I agree with BEL that you are on very shaky logical ground if you think that a) there ought to be a law against abortion and b) there didn’t need to be a law against domestic violence or child abuse--you’d have better logic if you argued that all need to be illegal or none of them need to be illegal. There are are interesting similarities, these are all events that occur within what is normally the personal/domestic zone of privacy, and intervening in any of them might be seen as a violation of family privacy and autonomy.

Again, no one not her and not no one I have ever seen post has said this

It is simpky what you say they said ad nauseum because it is trickery.

No one anywhere said “there should be no laws agaisnt beating wives” NO ONE.

The most extreme opposition you face is that we shouldnt have laws that circumvent due process and allow certain crimes to be reported without reprocussion for false accusations. THAT is the biggest thing anyone ever says even remotely close to what you two lie and claim they said.

Then we have what SS actually said.

Which was that (and you are catholic Xantippe???)

Catholic ideology is EXACTLY in line with all positive attributes of feminism. Bence why you Xantippe the super feminist can justify being catholic…

Ergo why is there a need for you to be part of a second religion that advocates the same things as the church PLUS evils???

Didn’t Jesus say something about serving two masters???

You either resent Catholicism or Feminism.

They are two religions, like Islam may have things in common with Catholiscm sure feminism has certain elements of “truth”

But only one has the “fullness of truth” and it is not the one that thinks murdering babies is good.

Honestly Xantippe you make me wonder if you aren’t a plant, you always skirt around your partner’s pro murder stances and have mentioned how much we could learn from gay, pagan, and atheists…

Idk.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

No it doesn’t tell you all you need to know, or you’d understand it. Not having women in leadership is not de facto sexest and as a woman it doesn’t bother me a bit and shouldn’t bother you. I doubt you’re saying that if women were bishops you’d be Catholic, either.

I’m not saying it should bother you. I’m pointing it out as one part of the puzzle when it comes to treatment of women in Catholic societies.

Clearly, it throws a wrench in your “equality” claim.

 

[LethalMouse]

I’m not saying it should bother you. I’m pointing it out as one part of the puzzle when it comes to treatment of women in Catholic societies.

Clearly, it throws a wrench in your “equality” claim.

And in Ireland they have gay marriage, ctholic “society” is nothing to do with the church.

And the lack of leadership is not how you think it is. It is specific theological roles alone…

However I heard of an Angel who once didn’t like how God said things were…

 

[SilverShadow22]

I’m not saying it should bother you. I’m pointing it out as one part of the puzzle when it comes to treatment of women in Catholic societies.

Clearly, it throws a wrench in your “equality” claim.

No, it doesn’t. Equal does not mean the same. No one ever said the male only leadership is because women aren’t ‘good enough’ to lead. Men and women have equal but DISTINCT roles.

 

[LethalMouse]

No, it doesn’t. Equal does not mean the same. No one ever said the male only leadership is because women aren’t ‘good enough’ to lead. Men and women have equal but DISTINCT roles.

Some can’t understand that. I mean Mother Teresa was in charge of a network how big???

But she had no authority.

Mother Angelica ran a national (or international?) Television network and was the virtual face of catholic teaching for many…

But nah the “man” held her down

 

[LethalMouse]

Heck Mother Angelica if I recall correctly even went toe to toe with some bishops and came out fine lol. Man to man from a feminist standpoint.

 

[Xantippe]

I nowhere said these things shouldn’t be illegal! Both abuse and abortion - which is MURDER - should be illegal!

What are you talking about? All I said was that in ANY case mere illegality is NOT the whole picture of stopping something.

And any abuse is assault, and assault is illegal. If you’re trying to say domestic abuse was not considered assault in some times or places then THAT was the problem and THAT is what needed fixed which AGAIN is a change in PEOPLE and how they see definitions of acceptable behavior.

That has mostly happened, and it’s been via a change in the law and the practice of law enforcement.

BEL, did I get that right?

Here’s the first thing I turned up:

"According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), in the 1980s, police were trained to screen domestic violence calls and it became common practice to delay any response to them in hopes that the problem would resolve itself at home, or that the assailant would leave before police arrived.

“However, thanks to women’s rights groups speaking out on this issue and pushing to make battering a criminal offense, there has been significant reform on the way police deal with domestic violence. It wasn’t until the landmark case, Thurman v. City of Torrington, that police started paying more attention to their liability in domestic violence cases, and were made aware that they could pay a severe financial penalty if they failed to do so. In this case, plaintiff Tracy Thurman was awarded $2.3 million when she sued the city of Torrington, CT police department after they repeatedly failed to arrest her abusive husband.”

family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-history-of-police-responses.html

 

[SilverShadow22]

Some can’t understand that. I mean Mother Teresa was in charge of a network how big???

But she had no authority.

Mother Angelica ran a national (or international?) Television network and was the virtual face of catholic teaching for many…

But nah the “man” held her down

Ooooo good point. The ‘leadership’ roles are not limited to the ordained ones. And there are three very famous high powered female Doctors of the Church. Then there’s the deep respect for Mary, the QUEEN of heaven… Second only to GOD.

 

[SilverShadow22]

That has mostly happened, and it’s been via a change in the law and the practice of law enforcement.

BEL, did I get that right?

Here’s the first thing I turned up:

"According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), in the 1980s, police were trained to screen domestic violence calls and it became common practice to delay any response to them in hopes that the problem would resolve itself at home, or that the assailant would leave before police arrived.

“However, thanks to women’s rights groups speaking out on this issue and pushing to make battering a criminal offense, there has been significant reform on the way police deal with domestic violence. It wasn’t until the landmark case, Thurman v. City of Torrington, that police started paying more attention to their liability in domestic violence cases, and were made aware that they could pay a severe financial penalty if they failed to do so. In this case, plaintiff Tracy Thurman was awarded $2.3 million when she sued the city of Torrington, CT police department after they repeatedly failed to arrest her abusive husband.”

family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-history-of-police-responses.html

That’s all well and good but I personally have witnessed this go so far the other way that my cousin’s gf called the cops on him for spite and the cops showed up and warned him that if she pressed charges, he’s done, because they ALWAYS believe the woman, it’s ingrained in law.

Yay… We substituted one injustice for another. Bravo, everyone.

 

[Xantippe]

Again, no one not her and not no one I have ever seen post has said this

It is simpky what you say they said ad nauseum because it is trickery.

No one anywhere said “there should be no laws agaisnt beating wives” NO ONE.

The most extreme opposition you face is that we shouldnt have laws that circumvent due process and allow certain crimes to be reported without reprocussion for false accusations. THAT is the biggest thing anyone ever says even remotely close to what you two lie and claim they said.

Then we have what SS actually said.

Which was that (and you are catholic Xantippe???)

Catholic ideology is EXACTLY in line with all positive attributes of feminism. Bence why you Xantippe the super feminist can justify being catholic…

Ergo why is there a need for you to be part of a second religion that advocates the same things as the church PLUS evils???

Didn’t Jesus say something about serving two masters???

You either resent Catholicism or Feminism.

They are two religions, like Islam may have things in common with Catholiscm sure feminism has certain elements of “truth”

But only one has the “fullness of truth” and it is not the one that thinks murdering babies is good.

Honestly Xantippe you make me wonder if you aren’t a plant, you always skirt around your partner’s pro murder stances and have mentioned how much we could learn from gay, pagan, and atheists…

Idk.

Silver Shadow has said a couple of times in the last few pages that there didn’t need to be domestic violence laws because there were already laws punishing assault.

 

[LethalMouse]

Silver Shadow has said a couple of times in the last few pages that there didn’t need to be domestic violence laws because there were already laws punishing assault.

Quote it. You cant.

She only said you didnt need Feminism. Not law.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Silver Shadow has said a couple of times in the last few pages that there didn’t need to be domestic violence laws because there were already laws punishing assault.

I absolutely did NOT.

What I said was that the real reform would be prosecuting abuse AS assault, not adding a whole new layer of laws to address what I ADMITTED was an injustice.

Which, you basically said the problem was that people IGNORED the law that was already there. Cops delayed showing up to witness ASSAULT that would then require prosecution. And actually I err on the side of other people butting the heck out. Cops still dread domestics because it’s he said/she said, a big mess, often little proof, and reneged charges.

 

[LethalMouse]

Plus even if there was a half a slip of understanding she reclarified repeatedly she was not opposed to laws.

So to keep on this claim is pure lies. Welcome back you two at the old tricks.

 

[Xantippe]

That’s all well and good but I personally have witnessed this go so far the other way that my cousin’s gf called the cops on him for spite and the cops showed up and warned him that if she pressed charges, he’s done, because they ALWAYS believe the woman, it’s ingrained in law.

Yay… We substituted one injustice for another. Bravo, everyone.

I suspect there were was probably some context to the police conversation.

Maybe they were telling him, hey you need to leave your girlfriend NOW because this is a toxic situation, and you shouldn’t stick around to see what’s next? Which would be very good advice either way. If he’s the abuser, he should go, and if he’s innocent, he should go, too.

That’s not literally the legal situation–you don’t just accuse somebody of something and BAM they go to jail–it’s a much more involved process than that.

Here’s a woman talking about her experience working in domestic violence with a police department:

xojane.com/issues/domestic-violence-unit-police-department