Why the fuss?

[belorg]

How can you prove that these arguments are anything more than your opinion that is based on your system of morals, which is exactly what you accuse us of? A better question would be how can you deny partnerships of more than 3 people based on those opinions? Do you have any studies that compare 2 person relationships to relationships with more people? You talk about a higher “chance for conflict”, yet I doubt you have any proof for this. Someone could argue that these relationships would be better for children as their would be more adults to turn to for help as well as more adults to help provide for the kids. And why would divorce be any more of an issue for these relationships? Custody might get a little complicated but there is no reason why the courts couldn’t handle that. You say that these reasons are just a few of the reasons why you support marriage between two people only so I’m curious to see if any of your other reasons are anything more than your opinions and how you can accept denying the rights of people who wish to live in these relationships based on the reasons you have given me.

I mean think about how wonderful it would be for women if two women were able to both have thriving careers and at the same time have a family because when one was at work the other could be with the kids and so on. There would be a guy in the relationships as well so the kids were not deprived of a fatherly influence.

OK, you’ve convinced me. I am going to advocate multi-partner marriages from now on.

 

[EasterJoy]

Moeal laws aren’t arbitrary and I have never claimed they were.

Quoting you: “Some aspects of morality just are arbitray and irrelevant”. Not only is that not true, but if you weren’t directly referring to SSM, I don’t see how the comment could have been relevant.

That’s true. It is not about forcing one narrow view on everybody else.
And I do not know the details about this clothing story. I personally have nothing against Muslim women wearing traditional garb not have I anything against math-teachers who are cross-dressers, but it does no necessarily follow that if you forbid one, you should also forbid the other. It depends on the reasons behind it.

It depends on the reasons? You’d just let this situation go by, shrug, and say, “Maybe they have their reasons”? What reasoning could possibly allow forbidding a woman from putting a cloth on her head while allowing a man to come to school in a dress and insist that students who already know him as a man refer to him as a “she”?

I agree with that, but that is not the issue in this discussion.

The discussion is “what’s the fuss”? Whether society has a stake in answering this question is precisely what this thread is about.

I replied to someone who explicttly used that reason. I am not discussing the other reasons here. That may be true, but I am not disputing this. I am disputing the right of one religious group to impose their rules onto others because they believe their truth is the only truth. I do not oppose rational arguments.

I think you don’t realize that our experience is that as soon as we tip our hand enough to reveal that we are religious, all our arguments are dismissed out-of-hand. If we don’t jump on the ridiculous homosexual-heterosexual-there-is-no-difference bandwagon, we’re accused of religious bigotry.

Heterosexual relationships still have a special status in my country, where same-sex marriages are legal. Before SSM were legal, they were as many homosexual relations as today, andnowadays, marriage isn’t very popular, neither with heterosexuals not with homosexuals.
Point is, e.g. that a man and a woman who do not want children can have a civil marriage, so civil marriage in istelf has nothing to do with the positive place of parents and garndparents and men and women have children without being married, and those children have parents and garndparents too.

A general decline in the “popularity” of marriage in countries with SSM is supposed to convince us that instituting SSM is a good thing for society? Again: here you’ve contributed an empirical argument for avoiding civil SSM.

There may be people who argue that, but of course the effects of homosexual relationships are not the same, but the effect of my marriage (FYI I am a heterosexual and have beenn happily married for over 25 years now) is not the sme as the efect of somenody else’s marriage either.

Again…the discussion in this country is about whether the two kinds of relationships are the same, because that is the hinge of the argument contending that homosexuals ought to be admitted to marriage on the same basis as heterosexuals. Meaning: same gender-nonspecific marriage license, spaces on birth certificates for the health department that list “parent 1” and “parent 2” instead of the biological mom and dad, you name it.

The Church can see that political discourse is saying that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the same. Why can’t the Church live with that? Because it is false and because society will suffer by the official promulgation of that falsehood in civil law.

Of course I think about that. But that wasn’t the issue of this discussion.

Of course it is!!! Look at the original post!!
“With gay civil unions / marriages legalised state by state in the U.S., why the fuss from the Church, if the She sees nothing sacred or special about civil marriage anyway?”

Catholics in a democracy have a duty to participate in politics so as to enact laws that will support justice and the common welfare. It is not enough to defend the state of marriage within our enclave. We are bound to support laws, including the laws governing marriage, that will have a just and good effect on the rest of society.

The Church does see even natural marriage, civil marriage, as something rooted in natural law, which is another way of saying that it is rooted into a recognition of the way human society necessarily works (or fails to work) by its very nature. Natural law is not some deus ex machina invented by the Church to sneak religious belief onto the unbelievers. It is a recognition that humankind, religious or not, operates according to certain principles, principles that the behavior of non-believers show are recognisable even by non-religious people. She does not see civil law as arbitrary or divorced from the laws of cause and effect. Rather, good law reflects the truth about who we are as human beings, a truth that can be seen without divine revelation. The Church also knows that voters in a democracy are ethically bound to consider natural cause and effect when enacting, striking down, or enforcing civil law.

For some reason, Christians are being told and some Christians are actually beginnning to believe that we’re supposed to treat the truth as if it were an arbitrary opinion. We are being told that to tell the truth is to push our view of the world on everyone else. Is this the standard everyone else holds themselves to? Of course not! An atheist can hold a political view that is directly opposed to plain biological fact, and that’s OK, because “everyone is entitled to his opinion.”

 

[EasterJoy]

OK, you’ve convinced me. I am going to advocate multi-partner marriages from now on.

IOW, a big for moral plasticity.

I think you’ve articulated where you’re coming from. Your stance seems to be that it is for you to worry about your own morality, but as a voter in a democracy, live and let live. As long as no one is going to be directly robbing, assaulting, or defacing you or your property, let license be the rule. Let marriage run into whatever state it is going to run to, it is no skin off of your back or your marriage.

What am I missing?

 

[belorg]

Why is it that when a person, who derives their system of morality from a belief in God, stands up to defend a particular legal issue, they are “imposing their rules onto others”? But when the atheist, who doesn’t know where his/her system of morality is derived from, stands up to defend a particular legal issue, it’s suddenly not an imposition, but rather, a “rational argument”?

It’s only if an argument is rational that it deserves to be called rational. It has nothing to do with morality from ab belief in God or not.
Are there rational reason to believe that same-sex marriage is morally wrong?

This type of hypocrisy reveals ignorance in how human beings formulate their beliefs. It’s as if, because you’re atheist, you get to claim you have “rational” beliefs and “rational” arguments.

NO, its when I defend my position using rationality that I have rational arguments.

And you get to do this because you think that so long as you cannot determine where your sense of morality comes from, you are free to argue your case without being challenged about your “imposition” of your beliefs onto others.

I don’t impose my beielfs onto others. Do I compel catholics to have homosexual relations, do I pass laws they say you must ordaine women as priests?

Look, the atheist activist and the theist activist both impose their beliefs into any debate which seeks to define and express moral issues. Your vote for same sex marriage is an imposition of your rules (beliefs) onto me

No, because it doesn’t affect you. And saying homesexuals cannot marry does affect them. Catholics are not allowed to have an opinion on this, of course.

You know, what if our religion taught us that same-sex marriage was a moral act?

I would applaud.

Would you claim that we are “imposing” our rules on others by arguing in town square in support of same sex marriage?

No, and I gave never said you are not allowed to argue in town squares now either. Arguing in town squares is a democratic right.

As soon as we disagree with your position, however, you throw out the “imposition” flag.

Not if it doesn’t affect other people.

What nonsense. If murder became legal in this country, we would argue against it ultimately because of our Christian belief that it is immoral. Would you claim we were imposing our rules on others to argue against murder for that reason? Or would you be okay because you agree murder is wrong?

I would be okay because you agree muredre is wrong. You would not get very far if the only argument you had against murder was that God opposes it. You would have to rely on more rational arguments too.

 

[Nate13]

@belorg
Lol at least that would make you consistent and you might get some sleep at night. The point of the argument is that you are using the absence of knowledge concerning the effects of SSA as a basis for why we should promote it and give it the same privileges that man-woman relationships have. I used this same argument to promote multiple partner relationships. And while you may argue that man-woman relationships don’t have religious origins, you can’t deny that the reason they are so widely accepted as the best kind of relationship is because of religion. I don’t understand why opponents of same-sex marriages are expected to provide the proof behind why we don’t want to give them the same benefits as man-woman marriages. SSA proponents should be the ones providing clear proof that same-sex marriages will have no bad effects on society and would provide all the benefits of marriage. So far they aren’t even close to being able to do this. Instead they mistakenly claim these benefits to be rights, that are being withheld because they are being discriminated against.

Also, maybe you should use some of that natural intuition towards why you originally opposed the idea of multiple partner relationships and apply it towards the idea of SSA marriages.

 

[Elizabeth502]

To belorg:
People who affiliate with any faith or spiritual tradition are generally non-schizophrenic about that religion or philosophy. Thus, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants, and Catholics, etc. will by definition apply moral principles to everyday life, because that is the nature of religion. Belief is not limited to a temple, a church, private prayer or practice. The belief system informs that person’s entire approach to decision-making and living in the world. Since you’re an atheist, perhaps you don’t understand it, but I am now informing you about it, in case you didn’t understand it. You cannot come to a forum with the title “Catholic” in it, and expect its partcipants who share that membership to embrace one set of ideals for society as a whole and a different set of ideals for themselves as individuals. It’s not a matter of “forcing.” It’s a matter of legitimate influence over the common good of a society, a society which believers and unbelievers alike have equal right to participate in with regard to decision-making.

 

[EasterJoy]

It’s only if an argument is rational that it deserves to be called rational. It has nothing to do with morality from ab belief in God or not.
Are there rational reason to believe that same-sex marriage is morally wrong?

NO, its when I defend my position using rationality that I have rational arguments.

I don’t impose my beielfs onto others. Do I compel catholics to have homosexual relations, do I pass laws they say you must ordaine women as priests?

No, because it doesn’t affect you. And saying homesexuals cannot marry does affect them. Catholics are not allowed to have an opinion on this, of course.

I would applaud.

No, and I gave never said you are not allowed to argue in town squares now either. Arguing in town squares is a democratic right.

Not if it doesn’t affect other people.

I would be okay because you agree muredre is wrong. You would not get very far if the only argument you had against murder was that God opposes it. You would have to rely on more rational arguments too.

Rational, shmational, what a line of hooey.

Not to get graphic, but it is irrational to equate homosexuality and heterosexuality. A biologist might report that homosexual acts happen in nature, but he or she would be hard-put to argue that homosexual relations do not go beyond the sexual activities a human body naturally evolved to engage in. If homosexual relations are not the same as heterosexual relations, if they differ by so great a difference as being inherently barren or inherently fertile, if only one kind of relations are necessary for the survival of the human race and one kind of relationship has been the norm for child-rearing for all of recorded time, it is irrational to try to pretend that the two are even remotely equal. Yet we hear arguments that imply we must have brain case smaller than Neanderthals if we don’t see the two as being the same. Someone is trying to hoodwink us.

One rational reason to believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong is the obvious fact that homosexuals cannot conceive children, combined with the observation that a common solution to this within homosexual relationships is extra-relational sex. They plan conceptions in which the child will not be allowed to be raised by biological parents that are living and capable of raising them. They contend “it doesn’t matter to the child.” That isn’t rational. That is rationalizing. I hope you would not argue that what happens to someone else’s child “doesn’t affect you.” Infanticide doesn’t affect me. Incestuous marriages between adults “don’t affect me”. That doesn’t mean I could let the rest of society enact laws permitting it, that I’d just be expected to keep my mouth shut about it.

Some argue that homosexual acts happen in nature, but in that case, rationally speaking, where do they get the idea that murder is wrong? From what rational axiom did they decide that people have a right not to be murdered? I mean, male chimps may mount other male chimps, but they murder other male chimps, too. Happens all the time. So why is it rational to use nature as an example in one instance, but not in another?

Again, many “rational arguments” are not internally-consistent rational arguments, but rather rationalizations. Even though chimpanzees have probably not evolved enough to engage in such obvious double-speak as what is typical amoung proponents of SSM, those aren’t the same thing.

At any rate, to return to the original question: The Church cares about civil marriage because the status, laws, and societal taboos surrounding civil marriage have an enormous impact on society and particularly upon children, who are vulnerable members of society and members upon whom society’s future rests. We don’t have to apologize for getting engaged in this discussion, we don’t have to apologize for contending that the answer to this question rests in the truth and not in mere arbirary opinion or behavioral fashion, and we don’t have to let the rest of the electorate decide on their own what the most pertinent questions to be answered are. Our faith does not rob us of our standing to be fully engaged in this discussion.

Some people think we have no place in this discussion, at least not if we don’t make our arguments in terms that could have easily have come from a teen-aged atheist. They can think that all they like, but we aren’t going to back down because some sector of public opinion casts an unhappy glare at us. We have our duty, and unpopularity doesn’t relieve us of it.

 

[Joe_5859]

If you want to know why the Church is concerned, then simply go to the source. Here is the satatement from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on this matter:

Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons

I highly recommend that any sincere person who is interested in this topic read the above document. It is the best articulation of the Catholic position that I have come across. Even those who disagree should be familiar with it so that they might respond to what the Catholic Church actually teaches rather than what they think the Catholic Church teaches.

It is not true that the Church sees nothing special or sacred about non-Catholic marriages. Even civil marriages are valid (presuming there are no impediments). And if both parties are baptized (and, again, there are no impediments) the marriage is also sacramental.

 

[belorg]

Quoting you: “Some aspects of morality just are arbitrary and irrelevant”. Not only is that not true, but if you weren’t directly referring to SSM, I don’t see how the comment could have been relevant.

Yes, some aspects of morality are just arbitray and irrelevant. Not all aspects. In general, moral laws i a country are not arbitrary. But sometimes they are.

It depends on the reasons? You’d just let this situation go by, shrug, and say, “Maybe they have their reasons”? What reasoning could possibly allow forbidding a woman from putting a cloth on her head while allowing a man to come to school in a dress and insist that students who already know him as a man refer to him as a “she”?

Well, I do not know the details, so I don’t know the reasons. That does not mean there can’t be any.

The discussion is “what’s the fuss”? Whether society has a stake in answering this question is precisely what this thread is about.

This thread, yes, but not the posts I was replting to.

I think you don’t realize that our experience is that as soon as we tip our hand enough to reveal that we are religious, all our arguments are dismissed out-of-hand.

If that is true, I don’t think that’s fair.

If we don’t jump on the ridiculous homosexual-heterosexual-there-is-no-difference bandwagon, we’re accused of religious bigotry.

Not if you have rational arguments against this.

A general decline in the “popularity” of marriage in countries with SSM is supposed to convince us that instituting SSM is a good thing for society?

No. But before you misuderstand this: the decline in pouplatity of marriages has nothing to do with SSM. The number of marriages was decining long before SSM were legal.
I mean; it’s not because SSM are legal that the majority of homesexual couples want to marry. Most of them don’t.

Again: here you’ve contributed an empirical argument for avoiding civil SSM.

Again…the discussion in this country is about whether the two kinds of relationships are the same, because that is the hinge of the argument contending that homosexuals ought to be admitted to marriage on the same basis as heterosexuals.

It’s not about their being the same, it’s about their being equivalent.

Meaning: same gender-nonspecific marriage license, spaces on birth certificates for the health department that list “parent 1” and “parent 2” instead of the biological mom and dad, you name it.

I don’t se a problem in that.

The Church can see that political discourse is saying that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the same.

Of course they differ. But the way I see my marriage also differs from the way you see yours (if you are married). Still, legally, my marriage and your would be ‘the same’

Why can’t the Church live with that? Because it is false and because society will suffer by the official promulgation of that falsehood in civil law.

OK, If you can provide a rational argument that shows that society will suffer then of course you have a point.

Of course it is!!! Look at the original post!!

I don’t mean ‘this thread’, I mean the discussion about homosexuals going to hell.

Catholics in a democracy have a duty to participate in politics so as to enact laws that will support justice and the common welfare.

Not only Catholics,EasterJoy, but everybody has that duty.

It is not enough to defend the state of marriage within our enclave. We are bound to support laws, including the laws governing marriage, that will have a just and good effect on the rest of society.

Again; everybody has that duty.

The Church does see even natural marriage, civil marriage, as something rooted in natural law, which is another way of saying that it is rooted into a recognition of the way human society necessarily works (or fails to work) by its very nature.

And this should be argued for by means of rational arguments. Not by means of ‘people who don’t do it, will burn in hell.’

Natural law is not some deus ex machina invented by the Church to sneak religious belief onto the unbelievers. It is a recognition that humankind, religious or not, operates according to certain principles, principles that the behavior of non-believers show are recognisable even by non-religious people. She does not see civil law as arbitrary or divorced from the laws of cause and effect. Rather, good law reflects the truth about who we are as human beings, a truth that can be seen without divine revelation.

Well, I totally agree with that. If a truth can be seen without divine revelation, then there is no need to appeal to divine revelation and threatening people with eternal torturing, is there?

For some reason, Christians are being told and some Christians are actually beginnning to believe that we’re supposed to treat the truth as if it were an arbitrary opinion.

No, you are supposed to treat the truth as the truth. And if it can be known without divine revelation, then make it known without appealing to divine revelation.

We are being told that to tell the truth is to push our view of the world on everyone else. Is this the standard everyone else holds themselves to? Of course not! An atheist can hold a political view that is directly opposed to plain biological fact, and that’s OK, because “everyone is entitled to his opinion.”

Well, if you show (not just assertà that you know the truth, thejn that’s a whole differnt matter.
But saying that people are going to be cast in hell is not the truth.

 

[belorg]

IOW, a big for moral plasticity.

I think you’ve articulated where you’re coming from. Your stance seems to be that it is for you to worry about your own morality, but as a voter in a democracy, live and let live. As long as no one is going to be directly robbing, assaulting, or defacing you or your property, let license be the rule. Let marriage run into whatever state it is going to run to, it is no skin off of your back or your marriage.

What am I missing?

Everything, you are completely wrong.

 

[belorg]

@belorg
Lol at least that would make you consistent and you might get some sleep at night. The point of the argument is that you are using the absence of knowledge concerning the effects of SSA as a basis for why we should promote it and give it the same privileges that man-woman relationships have. I used this same argument to promote multiple partner relationships. And while you may argue that man-woman relationships don’t have religious origins, you can’t deny that the reason they are so widely accepted as the best kind of relationship is because of religion. I don’t understand why opponents of same-sex marriages are expected to provide the proof behind why we don’t want to give them the same benefits as man-woman marriages. SSA proponents should be the ones providing clear proof that same-sex marriages will have no bad effects on society and would provide all the benefits of marriage. So far they aren’t even close to being able to do this. Instead they mistakenly claim these benefits to be rights, that are being withheld because they are being discriminated against.

Also, maybe you should use some of that natural intuition towards why you originally opposed the idea of multiple partner relationships and apply it towards the idea of SSA marriages.

I still oppose to multiple partner relationships, Nate, did you miss out on the smiley?
But I don’t have the time to go into this any further.

 

[Nate13]

@belorg
So let me get this straight. Your position on same-sex marriage is that in the absence of knowledge as to the effect of same-sex marriages on society we should approve them. Did I get that right? I’m still confused as to why I’m expected to provide proof that same-sex marriages are bad for society, instead of your side being required to prove that it would not have a mal effect on society?

 

[belorg]

Rational, shmational, what a line of hooey.

Not to get graphic, but it is irrational to equate homosexuality and heterosexuality. A biologist might report that homosexual acts happen in nature, but he or she would be hard-put to argue that homosexual relations do not go beyond the sexual activities a human body naturally evolved to engage in. If homosexual relations are not the same as heterosexual relations, if they differ by so great a difference as being inherently barren or inherently fertile, if only one kind of relations are necessary for the survival of the human race and one kind of relationship has been the norm for child-rearing for all of recorded time, it is irrational to try to pretend that the two are even remotely equal. Yet we hear arguments that imply we must have brain case smaller than Neanderthals if we don’t see the two as being the same. Someone is trying to hoodwink us.

One rational reason to believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong is the obvious fact that homosexuals cannot conceive children, combined with the observation that a common solution to this within homosexual relationships is extra-relational sex. They plan conceptions in which the child will not be allowed to be raised by biological parents that are living and capable of raising them. They contend “it doesn’t matter to the child.” That isn’t rational. That is rationalizing. I hope you would not argue that what happens to someone else’s child “doesn’t affect you.” Infanticide doesn’t affect me. Incestuous marriages between adults “don’t affect me”. That doesn’t mean I could let the rest of society enact laws permitting it, that I’d just be expected to keep my mouth shut about it.

Some argue that homosexual acts happen in nature, but in that case, rationally speaking, where do they get the idea that murder is wrong? From what rational axiom did they decide that people have a right not to be murdered? I mean, male chimps may mount other male chimps, but they murder other male chimps, too. Happens all the time. So why is it rational to use nature as an example in one instance, but not in another?

Again, many “rational arguments” are not internally-consistent rational arguments, but rather rationalizations. Even though chimpanzees have probably not evolved enough to engage in such obvious double-speak as what is typical amoung proponents of SSM, those aren’t the same thing.

At any rate, to return to the original question: The Church cares about civil marriage because the status, laws, and societal taboos surrounding civil marriage have an enormous impact on society and particularly upon children, who are vulnerable members of society and members upon whom society’s future rests. We don’t have to apologize for getting engaged in this discussion, we don’t have to apologize for contending that the answer to this question rests in the truth and not in mere arbirary opinion or behavioral fashion, and we don’t have to let the rest of the electorate decide on their own what the most pertinent questions to be answered are. Our faith does not rob us of our standing to be fully engaged in this discussion.

Some people think we have no place in this discussion, at least not if we don’t make our arguments in terms that could have easily have come from a teen-aged atheist. They can think that all they like, but we aren’t going to back down because some sector of public opinion casts an unhappy glare at us. We have our duty, and unpopularity doesn’t relieve us of it.

OK, now you have some kind of rational argument, and now there would be something to discuss.

 

[belorg]

@belorg
So let me get this straight. Your position on same-sex marriage is that in the absence of knowledge as to the effect of same-sex marriages on society we should approve them Did I get that right? .

No, you are not.

I’m still confused as to why I’m expected to provide proof that same-sex marriages are bad for society, instead of your side being required to prove that it would not have a mal effect on society?

NO, both you and I are expected to give rational arguments for our positions, so that there is actually something to discuss.
I cannot and willl not discuss on the basis of ‘God says so and if you don’t believe it, He’ll cast you into hell’.

 

[Nate13]

No, you are not.

NO, both you and I are expected to give rational arguments for our positions, so that there is actually something to discuss.
I cannot and willl not discuss on the basis of ‘God says so and if you don’t believe it, He’ll cast you into hell’.

Alright here is my argument then. There are lots of studies, a track record of history, and the knowledge that man-woman marriages have got us to where we are today that all support the idea that heterosexual, man-woman relationships are a benefit to society and promote the common good. I would not support giving special benefits of any kind to these kinds of relationships in our society without this proof. I demand similar proof from same-sex couples before even contemplating giving them the same benefits. Period. Marriage between one man and one woman has promoted the idea of civilization, and as we have become more civilized, it has led to greater and greater achievements by mankind. Can you come up with any proof that same-sex marriages are doing the same?

 

[EasterJoy]

Everything, you are completely wrong.

I realize that you meant it as a joke, but the smiley was out of place, then. I don’t think you realize what kind of arguments we see on forums like this and out in the secular world, with no tongue remotely in the cheek.

 

[EasterJoy]

OK, now you have some kind of rational argument, and now there would be something to discuss.

Well, this is the kind of argument you get if you go to the bishops and ask why the Church makes a fuss.

It is not that eternal consequences have no importance or that hell doesn’t belong in a “rational” discussion. Because they realize that hell isn’t a concern to a rather large segment of the voting population and that among those who do care about last things there are those who don’t believe a Catholic bishop could find Heaven with divinely-sent GPS and a legion of angels with streetlamps, the bishops do not bring hell into the discussion, either.

If you ask an individual Catholic why he or she personally cares, though, that is a different matter.

 

[belorg]

Alright here is my argument then. There are lots of studies, a track record of history, and the knowledge that man-woman marriages have got us to where we are today that all support the idea that heterosexual, man-woman relationships are a benefit to society and promote the common good.

Yes, but you make it sound as if anybody is trying to promote same-sex relationship at the cost of man-woman marriages. That is ot the issue. It is not because homesexuals are allowed to marry that man-woman relationships lose value. It’s not that all of a sudden everybody will become a homosexual or something.
Anyway, I did not enter this tread to specifically argue in favour of SSM, just to promote the use of rational arguments, and yours is a rational argument, so , while I don’t agree with it, it’s worth discussing. But that will have to wait. I don’t feel like discussing it right now. I’ve already spent much more time in this thread than I intended.

 

[belorg]

I realize that you meant it as a joke, but the smiley was out of place, then. I don’t think you realize what kind of arguments we see on forums like this and out in the secular world, with no tongue remotely in the cheek.

Do you realize, EasterJoy what kinds of argument we as atheists sometimes have to face and how ofeten we hear the ‘you-deserve-to-burn-in-hell’ mantra?
And how often the athiest position is completely ridiculed?

.

 

[belorg]

Well, this is the kind of argument you get if you go to the bishops and ask why the Church makes a fuss.

And in most cases, the bishop gets a rational answer.

It is not that eternal consequences have no importance or that hell doesn’t belong in a “rational” discussion. Because they realize that hell isn’t a concern to a rather large segment of the voting population and that among those who do care about last things there are those who don’t believe a Catholic bishop could find Heaven with divinely-sent GPS and a legion of angels with streetlamps, the bishops do not bring hell into the discussion, either.

Great. Because every rational argument is worth considering. Also the rational arguments made by proponets of SSM (and lots, if not most of them are no atheists, BTW),

If you ask an individual Catholic why he or she personally cares, though, that is a different matter.

Yes, but that should only concern Christians.
You think atheists will burn in hell anyway, so whether atheist homosexuals marry or not does not matter from that perspective.