…is what bwings Ewizabeth Scawia’s thoughts togevver!
It is good, but like many Catholic defenses of marriage it is too tinged with Catholicism. I know it is difficult for such defenses not to be since the Catholic faith reveals so much more about marriage, but that is only preaching to the choir. Maybe we need arguments from anthropology, biology and economics (i.e. there never a gay marriage, there may have been polygamy — but was always between opposite sexes, sexual parts are apposite, etc.) I know natural law is scoffed at in intellectual circles where there may still be a vestigial memory of it, but it could be a useful wedge/hedge.
I see Mark’s doing his impression of Barry Kripke.
Nope, the Princess Bride.
Shouldn’t that be Bawwy Kwipke?
Pax et bonum,
Funny headline Mark, thanks for the link. Mark R, it’s interesting that you found it “too Catholic.” I have had several emails from people who objected to my discussion of Eastern religions because “Catholicism doesn’t need backup from those heathens!” or words to that affect.
“Office” and “calling” are giveaways…one could almost guess your Benedictine connection without your disclosure of it (I like OSBs a lot).
It all, inevitably, goes back to Luther and what was once a sacrament being placed under
the authority of the state. It was bound to happen eventually. Now, what will stop beastiality, polygamy, and necrophila ?
Animals and dead bodies can’t consent. Polygamy is exploitative by its very nature (though Yahweh seems to endorse it in your Old Testament).
If they can’t consent then there’s no freedom being violated. By your logic, they’re fine. And you steadfast refuse to engage Dale Price’s points. You seem to be here to self-medicate a need to feel superior, not to actually persuade anybody with actual arguments. Hope you are enjoying your sophomore year in college.
Consent is the basis for moral relationships, especially sexual.
So then you’d definitely draw the line at the chick in France marrying the Eiffel Tower, since consent is beyond the abilities of her Iron Hunk? Is she molesting the Eiffel Tower then? If not, why not? If so, what about dildos?
Or do you respect metallic rights but not butyl rubber ones?
So then you’d definitely draw the line at the chick in France marrying the Eiffel Tower, since consent is beyond the abilities of her Iron Hunk?
Is she molesting the Eiffel Tower then? If not, why not? If so, what about dildos?
Woah, you just switched from sexual relationships to marriage. Big difference. I could care less what objects someone sexually stimulates themselves with, but marriage is reserved for those that are able to consent to it.
Ok, so there’s no need for consent in sex, only in marriage.
And yet you no doubt support masturbation as natural and good. An advocate of bestiality would argue that the dog humping his leg is “consenting”. A corpse is incapable of consent, as is a Japanese doll. If the latter inanimate object is a fit partner in your world, the former logically is too, when the only partner capable of consent is giving it.
Seriously, if you could do *something* beside simply remain on the offensive. If you could think just a little. Show just a *little* humility about your arrogance, you’d be able to acknowledge that there is something problematic with your cocksureness. But, as you abundantly demonstrate, sin makes you stupid.
And yet you no doubt support masturbation as natural and good.
Yes. Is this still controversial? Oh, wait, you think its “mortal sin”. I guess I should expect that from someone who still believes in demons.
An advocate of bestiality would argue that the dog humping his leg is “consenting”.
He can argue all he wants, but that’s not consent, which requires human intelligence.
A corpse is incapable of consent, as is a Japanese doll.
A Japanese doll was never human.
Are you saying that, if you found out tomorrow that Jesus never rose from the dead and that the Church is a complete shame, that suddenly you’d have no problem with necrophilia? That the only reason you oppose it is because the Church tells you its wrong, not by using reason and your own innate sense of morality?
Notice how opponents of marriage equality don’t even bother with arguing against gay marriage anymore–now they have to make up red herrings about necrophilia and polygamy. It’s a sign that they’re losing.
So what that a corpse was once human? You’re just making crap up to get out of the logical bind you’ve place yourself in.
And then you just go on the attack again rather than face that.
So what that a corpse was once human?
Part of being a decent human being is respect for the dead.
So if it wasn’t for Catholicism, I am to understand that you’d endorse necrophilia.
This is what happens when reason is abandoned for faith, and you let old men in Rome do your thinking for you rather than use reason to figure it out yourself.
where do you get “decent” from? what if we say “decent” also precludes homosexual activity? Why is YOUR sense of decency somehow authoritative?
Hey, Ben – what about 3 men? Can 3 men be married?
dem’s some loud crickets right there…
A necrophiliac would reply that his love is the most intense form of respect for the dead. Who are you to judge him with your religious taboos about what respect for the dead is supposed to look like? You sound like one of those Christianist bigots who insist that marriage can only look like a man and woman. Keep your rosaries off our mortuaries!
You really are desperate to avoid your own logic, aren’t you? All that Vanguard of History stuff just erupts out of you when you have to try to paper over the problem you are creating for yourself.
I think the family of the departed may disagree.
So if the family of a gay couple objects to their marriage their consent is trumped? And, by the way, if the deceased was the spouse, he or she *is* the family.
Keep your rosaries off our mortuaries. Why should your irrational religious taboo stand in the way of True Love?
You can derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’? Others have been trying for centuries.
Do please demonstrate your breakthrough for us.
So basically, Mark, you are advocating relations with trolls.
Please demonstrate that polygamy is exploitative in its very nature.
When you just assert it over and over without actually offering any evidence or argument for your position, it sounds like a dogma. If it is, I can respect that. On whose authority then, do you subscribe to such dogma?
I think anybody with a double-digit IQ can figure out why.
I want to hear YOUR argument for this claim. You keep making it. Responding to requests for elucidation as you do, just reinforces the perception that you have no argument.
Did you provide the correct link? Because that article doesn’t even begin to claim that polygamy is innately exploitative.
Here, let me provide alink of my own: http://dictionary.reference.com/
There, you can find out what polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, innate, and exploitative all mean.
You may wish to explain your point to proponents of the polyamory movement, which is gearing up for legal recognition.
So is the only reason you oppose polygamy is because the Catholic Church told you its wrong? That if it wasn’t for the Pope and the Magesterium you’d be unable to have an objection to it? Are you really suggesting that?
I am part of a matrilineal society which allowed polygamy in rare cases, up until most of us had accepted Christ in one protestant denomination or another. (Usually polyandry, not polygyny, though polygyny was also possible but much more difficult.) I think you are in grave error about the innate exploitativeness of polygamy, due to my cultural perspective.
So yes, the only reason I have against polygamy is that Christ was specific that it’s bad for human beings.
I’d still love to hear your argument, you Eurocentrist, you!
Wow! Of course this means Christ, being the Second Person of the Trinity and therefore God, changed his mind from the Old Testament when he had no problem with polygamy, huh?
Nope. It means that once God became a Man, He no longer chose to accommodate that particular weakness in mankind, and instead called us to the fullness of what He had always been offering us.
Maybe you ought to try actually comprehending things you read. Mortimer Adler once wrote a decent little tome that might be helpful for you. “How to Read a Book” http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Touchstone-book/dp/0671212095/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337109282&sr=8-1
So the only reason these good, orthodox Catholics won’t endorse necrophilia and polygamy is because the Church says so. They really think that without God, all things are permitted.
Have you always sculpted so deftly in straw, or did you have to apprentice somewhere?
Ben theAtheist, I think you might be basing your repulsion of necrophilia on natural law , in that you think (and rightly so) that this rejection is something that is based in reason. Catholic moral teaching is based on natural law as well as divine revelation. So if the Pope suddenly declared necrophilia to be okay, we’d know something was really wrong with thePope! Polygamy is a little harder to dismiss via natural law because there could be situations where the wives openly chose the marriage. Also nowadays we all consider marriage to be about consent and love, but in other societies and through out history, marriage was more of a social contract between families. A father could command his son to marry a girl whom the father had picked out for him, for instance. But I’m with you in the idea that polygamy is usually exploitative. And therefore very problematic. However, lately I have encountered the polyamory idea, especially through one person i know who believes that she is bi-sexual and therefore can be married to both a woman and a man at the same time as long as all consent. You start getting into strange territory there. Marriage through out history is not about romance. Not really. In the modern west we think of it that way but really it is the way humans propagate our species and try to ensure the offspring will grow to competent adulthood. This is natural law. Marriage is a good for our species. If you redefine it as having nothing to with bearing children and only about consent you’ve broken from natural law. Even societies that promoted homosexuality, like the Ancient Greeks at times, didn’t think of such relationships as on a par with marriage. It just doesn’t make sense if you believe that there are biological and a natural law basis for marriage.
Something I want to know:
Would you all stop your children from playing with another child that happened to have two Dads or two Moms? Would you refuse to be friends with them or invite them to your house? Would you think hanging out with them would seriously damage your child?
It’s their child I’d be worried about. So to answer your questions in order
No (if “them” means the child) Yes (if “them” means the couple.)
But let’s be honest, do you know such couples open-minded enough to be friends with the likes of us? Because we are honest with our friends, we care for them and certainly warn them if their running headlong toward cliffs. Can your hypothetical couple take that?
Yes (if “them” means the couple.)
Didn’t Jesus break bread with prostitutes and tax collectors?
Sure. Does that mean I need to let my child “hang out” with adults?
Yep. He didn’t bring kids to their houses or places of work and say, ‘It’s just fine to be a tax collector or a prostitute.’ You seem to have confused ‘ministry’ with ‘giving scandal’.
If your own child grew up to believe that marriage was between one man and one woman, would you call your son or daughter a “bigot” or “homophobe”? If this was motivated by religious belief, would you insinuate that they are stupid?
I definitely want to hear those answers!
Yes, and if they became religious I’d consider them irrationally superstitious but not “stupid”.
But what would make your views on the matter better than your child’s views?
Just as if my child grew up to join the Klan and be a racist, I’d tell them they hold racist views.
What if they just chose to go into genetic research and concentrated their efforts on the intersection of gene distribution and intelligence, and their research demonstrated that some groups are inferior to others, not possessing certain genes which correlate to higher cognition?
Would you call them racist then? The results certainly would be. But it’d be irrationally superstitious to deny them.
So is one better than the other, or more preferable? Racism over irrational superstition, or irrational superstition over racism? Because the direction the research is going, science is going to possibly (probably?) be churning out some very racist results over the next few decades, and to ignore solid scientific research, or to dismiss it without refutation, is irrational superstition, right? We’ll all be either racists or irrationally superstitious someday, at the current pace. Which side will you take?
Stop lying. You’ve shown no evidence that you want to know anything. You’re searching for “gotcha” moments, regurgitating soundbites (even after they have been thoroughly debunked), and simply ignoring conversation threads that you start as soon as you realize that you’re way off track. In many threads now, people have eviscerated what passes for your logic and you haven’t responded at all. You haven’t even changed tack in future threads. You start conversations, have your arguments destroyed, and then hide.
No, no, no. The last thing you’ve done is proven that you want to “know” anything at all. As Mark is fond of saying, some people ask questions to find things out, and others ask questions to keep from finding things out. You, sir, are firmly in the latter group.