kayevcee
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
The Weather Wizard
Posts: 5,527
|
Post by kayevcee on Apr 26, 2012 16:01:00 GMT
Meanwhile in the 19th century, Archbishop Smith and Archbishop Nichols continue their hard work of emptying Catholic institutions all across Britain with this little gem: Catholic church urges pupils to sign anti-gay marriage petitionNow, back when the Vatican was a moral authority (in the eyes of its congregation if nowhere else) it seemed quite reasonable for the Church to call on its followers to petition the government on various matters- poverty, civil rights, international development, fair trade- all that good stuff. This particular move, however, is an appeal contrary to principles of equal rights and non-discrimination enshrined in the gospels. I've said it before and I'll say it again- there is not one passage in the entire Bible from cover to cover that rejects the validity of same-sex relationships as we understand them today and there is definitely nothing prohibiting same-sex marriage. To say otherwise is an example of twisting the Word to justify a group's own prejudices on a par with appartheit, slavery or the subjugation of women. I'd like to say I've never been so ashamed to call myself a Catholic, but sadly that's not the case. The only good that can possibly come of this is in the feedback from the schools, letting Church higher-ups know just how disconnected they are from their flock. But that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary. If you are a Catholic, practicing or lapsed, or if you just have a strong opinion on the subject, you can get in touch with the local Cardinal by many avenues using this handy website. Don't be shy. I know I won't be. -Nick |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 26, 2012 17:18:16 GMT
Yes, as an ex-Catholic and with a continuing passing interest in Christian affairs, Nick is exactly right. Various idiots in power really should have the courage to just say 'WE HATE GAY PEOPLE' , because that is exactly what they are saying in not so many words. There is not an ounce of Christian doctrine to support their disgusting anti-gay rants. If only they could put such energy into petitioning the Government and involving their flocks in something actually useful.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on May 2, 2012 5:11:44 GMT
I've paid very little attention to the supposedly religious component of the gay marriage debate because there is no real consistency or consensus in any the arguments I've heard on either side, and I personally have enough trouble coping with the language implications, let alone questions of theology. At the moment, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a marriage as a legally recognised union between a man and a woman usually with the intention of living together and having sexual relations, and entailing property and inheritance rights, and a civil partnership as a legally recognised union of a same-sex couple with rights similar to those of marriage. If society wishes, it can redefine marriage to cover both types of union... and retain civil partnerships for the benefit of heterosexual and same-sex couples who object to the word marriage... so you have two legal institutions with exactly the same effect but different names... and you have to use other terms, such as "heterosexual marriage" and "same-sex civil partnership" in future if you want to communicate whether you're talking about a man and a woman or two of the same gender. And society could even extend the word marriage beyond sexual partnerships, so that sisters or three good mates or a parent and children, or anyone who wants to enter into a life-long commitment with property and inheritance rights, could be considered married. And in the name of gender equality, women could call themselves men, and vice versa, and you'd have to talk about male men and female men... and black people should have the right to be known as white... As a general preference, in the interest of clarity of meaning I prefer to have different words / different terms for different things, provided it doesn't put anyone at an unjust material disadvantage. (What's in a name?) I'm not clear on how exactly redefining the word "marriage" is a blow against discrimination, any more than redfining the word "heterosexual" to cover gays would be... If in the eyes of my fellow liberals it is such a blow, God bless it, but I hope it's not the first of many such political redefinitions of language. Much better to use the law to ensure things like equality of opportunity, etc., than uniformity of language. (I would say homogeneity of language, but that's just asking for trouble...) Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on May 2, 2012 8:29:51 GMT
Personally I feel this isn't an issue for MPs to decide, it's just too big. It wasn't on any party's manifesto at the last election. Put it to the people as a referenum on whether they want to redefine the meaning of marriage in the UK.
I'm gonna spin this one out the top story thread into one of it's own. If there's any posts elsewhere on the matter I miss PM me and I'll move them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benn on May 2, 2012 10:51:30 GMT
I already do redefine the meaning. Marriage is marriage to me, regardless of whether it's between a man and a woman, two men, two women or two dogs in Las Vegas. The distinction of language is something that, for most people I think, doesn't apply, and only really matters in matters of Law. If I may quote from Martin: "At the moment, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a marriage as a legally recognized union between a man and a woman usually with the intention of living together and having sexual relations, and entailing property and inheritance rights, and a civil partnership as a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple with rights similar to those of marriage" So, basically, in my eyes it's a case of "A rose by any other name..." Same thing, different names for legal reasons only. Out in the real world, there's no difference. Or at least there shouldn't be. I am a bit tired, so if I've got the wrong end of this discussion, I apologize. |
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,476
|
Post by Hero on May 2, 2012 17:24:04 GMT
I believe, The Bible does map out that marriage is designed around the archetypal, family model of a man and woman started by Adam and Eve. Any mention of marriage in there from there on has been between a man and woman henceforth.
I am almost certain with the way lobby groups are pushing it and political support, Civil Partnerships will be redefined as Marriage, at least by 2015. I can't picture a lot of churches agreeing to it or performing the unions. I can also picture those who don't agree with it wanting their traditional marriage re-branded and it could just get even further complicated. Playing politics with marriage is going to get messy.
The Civil Partnership is a right that already exists and doesn't need any further fighting for. I think the establishment should be left alone.
I don't hate gays or disagree with civil partnerships BTW.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on May 2, 2012 17:43:33 GMT
I already do redefine the meaning. Marriage is marriage to me, regardless of whether it's between a man and a woman, two men, two women or two dogs in Las Vegas. Does it have to be a sexual relationship? For some people, the sacred thing about marriage is procreational sex, which can clearly only take place between a man and a woman (though admittedly not every man and woman). For others, what matters most is the lifelong commitment, manifested in law by shared property and inheritance rights, which needn't involve sex at all, and could in principle be extended to pairings or greater numbers of blood relatives or friends in a Platonic relationship. Seems a shame to me if the key requirement to qualify for marriage is recreational sex. I'm gonna spin this one out the top story thread into one of it's own. I knew I could count on you. Thanks for rescuing the "Top news story of the day" thread from something serious! Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on May 2, 2012 18:14:26 GMT
I'm gonna spin this one out the top story thread into one of it's own. I knew I could count on you. Thanks for rescuing the "Top news story of the day" thread from something serious! Martin Always a pleasure to be of service. |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on May 2, 2012 18:45:23 GMT
So, basically, in my eyes it's a case of "A rose by any other name..." Same thing, different names for legal reasons only. Out in the real world, there's no difference. Or at least there shouldn't be. I am a bit tired, so if I've got the wrong end of this discussion, I apologize. I think you might have got the wrong end of my point, at least with regard to quoting from 'Romeo & Juliet'.  My point was that if both marriage and civil partnership were available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, then they would indeed be two different names for the same legal thing (depending only on whether or not the couple in question wanted to be called married). But at present, they are two different words for two different things - formalised heterosexual partnerships and formalised homosexual partnerships. Those are two different things because men are not women and heterosexuality is not homosexuality. Not two roses - two different flowers, which some people may think smell equally sweet while others prefer one over the other. I suppose it's like redefining the word rose to cover tulips as well and vice versa. Or something like that. You'd then need to find some other way of saying rose and tulip for when you wanted to convey that you meant one or the other. Martin |
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Jun 23, 2012 15:20:50 GMT
Wait...back up everybody...
It is important to distinguish between two things when discussing marriage and Catholicism:
1) Civil marriage
2) Catholic marriage
According to the Catholic church, Marriage is a sacrament that unites a man and a woman via God.
According to various State/government laws marriage is... a lot of different things.
The government ought not infringe on anybody's individual liberties. One of those individual liberties is the right to free association.
If I want to associate myself in a religious order which defines marriage as a sacramental covenenant between a man and a woman - no one should have the right to prohibit me from doing so, and no one should have the right to prohibit the existence of a religious order that limits marrage within that religion to a man and a woman.
Conversely - if someone else wants to be in a homosexual association or to engage in a homosexual relationship - that is their right. If they want to call it "marriage" - as unfitting a definition as that might be according to my Catholic beliefs or other people's beliefs - homosexuals can call it what they want.
The problem really begins when people allow the government to have a say in what marriage is and isn't.
There should not - in my opinion - be ANY civil laws pertaining to marriage. As a Catholic, I don't want to ever have a "civil marriage" - I only want a Church marriage. I don't want the government involved in my personal life - certainly not in something as personal as marriage.
People can sign different contracts with one another. They can sign agreements that are binding under civil law. If a couple (Catholic, gay, whatever) want to formalize their relationship in the eyes of civil law - they should just sign a notarized contract that the law will honor like any other contract.
This contract can stipulate about everything from property rights to post-mortem affairs. There will probably be a wide variety of content in such contracts because diferent people expect and require different things.
Sometimes - there might not be any contracts - people can live in non-binding relationships based on trust and common sense.
As a Catholic, I want to be married in the Catholic church and have my marriage governed by Cannon Law under the Catholic Church.
Nobody forces me to make this decision and one can rescind it at any time.
The real problem is government involvement in people's private lives. All marriage laws should be abolished - there ought not be any such thing as a "civil marriage". The law should simply acknowledge the validity of all contracts (written and verbal) entered into by individuals and/or associations and proceed from there.
As for the (inevitable) issue of adoption - this is a tricky business in any event - I don't really feel like writing on this subject due to lack of time - but rest assured I have an opinion on the matter as well - and it can be summarized as "let the market sort it out" :-)
Pete
EDIT: And for the record - there should not be any such thing as "state funded religious schools" either.
If this was just a regular, private Catholic school that took no tax money and was free to teach whatever it pleased - then there would be no problem.
Those who thought the Church view scandalous could (as they can now) leave the church or the school. Those who agreed could stay.
Unfortunately - the government has taken to controling the content of education, and this in turn means that every single issue - all the way down to very personal private issues like marriage - have to be fought in the public square.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Jun 23, 2012 15:38:22 GMT
I'm still baffled that the US has (in many parts) gay marriage before the UK!
I mean come on, the Church of England was set up specifically to destroy the sanctity of marriage!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Jun 24, 2012 18:24:25 GMT
I think if two people love each other and want to live their lives together as a married couple they should be allowed to do so- Man, Woman, Gay, Alien, Wilderbeast, whatever.
Mrs Shockers was approached by a helper Lady at one of the Baby play-groups she goes to, asking her to sign a petition against gay marriage. Mrs Shockers has nothing against gay marriage either. Mrs Shockers was shocked at one of the arguments the Lady came up with against gay marriage. She claimed that if gay marriage is allowed, so would marriage between brothers and sisters! Madness. Mrs Shockers calmly sided away from the woman. Incredible that some people feel so threatened by it, that they allow themselves to believe anything. How would two men who love each other getting married possibly harm anyone else? Surely the rising divorce rates does more harm to the ideal of marriage than two people in love wanting to live together as a married couple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Jun 24, 2012 22:02:32 GMT
Yes, exactly. It doesn't do them any harm personally, but they think it is not right and that others must be protected from themselves because they know better.
Meanwhile ignoring all the other stuff that breaks their view of the sanctity of marriage i.e. divorce, affairs, etc that go on all the time around them...
I think there are great benefits that can come from marriage, but it is not my place (nor the governments) to tell others how to live out their relationships if it harms no one.
Certainly those protesting against gay marriage need to have better arguments than they demonstrate already - even when framed in religious terms (and I am speaking as someone who is quite religious myself).
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jun 25, 2012 6:19:19 GMT
I think if two people love each other and want to live their lives together as a married couple they should be allowed to do so- How would two men who love each other getting married possibly harm anyone else? Surely the rising divorce rates does more harm to the ideal of marriage than two people in love wanting to live together as a married couple. they think it is not right and that others must be protected from themselves because they know better. it is not my place (nor the governments) to tell others how to live out their relationships if it harms no one. Don't confuse what this thread is about. It's not about whether gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual married couples, or how people should live with one another. It's about whether the word 'marriage' - which has a religious and secular meaning linked to having children - should be redefined from 'husband and wife' to mean something broader. You can be against redefining marriage without having anything against alternative lifestyles. I'm a single person. I don't think I have the right to call myself married. I don't think two friends or two sisters, or a parent and child, or a disabled person and their carer who live together have the right to call themselves married. It is reasonable to say that the word 'married' means a life partnership of the biological kind (i.e. man and woman in a sexual relationship) that potentially leads to children being born - i.e. it is defined by lifelong commitment _and_ the process by which the species procreates. There are many other kinds of committed loving relationship, including gay partnerships and all the others that I listed above. But there's no particular reason why the word 'marriage' should be broadened to include any or all of those other equally admirable types of partnership. Mixing up the two issues of how people should live and what the word 'marriage' should mean makes it awkward for those many, many people who are in favour of equal legal rights for committed homosexual and non-sexual partnerships but don't want the particular meaning of the word 'marriage' to change because they think it should be linked specifically to the mechanism of procreation. I'd still be interested to hear if those who think marriage should be broadened to include committed homosexual partnerships think it should be limited to sexual partnerships only and denied to people in loving non-sexual partnerships - e.g. two siblings. If they would broaden it from heterosexual partnerships to all sexual partnerships but deny it to non-sexual partnerships or larger groups of friends, why? If it doesn't have to be about the act of procreation, why should marriage be about sex at all? I'm still baffled that the US has (in many parts) gay marriage before the UK! The whole of the UK has civil partnerships which are the gay equivalent of marriage. Only some parts of the US have this. The UK is therefore well ahead of the US in terms of gay rights regardless of whether it legally redefines the word 'marriage'. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Jun 25, 2012 18:32:21 GMT
I wouldn't necessarily link (secular or religious) marriage to having children, although I do appreciate in some traditions they are. I know many couples who can't have children (for whatever reason), but also other couples who have chosen to marry but not to have children.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jun 25, 2012 19:47:45 GMT
You've pointed out a legitimate flaw in the argument, Gavin, to which the only answer can be that it's still the sort of sexual pairing that has evolved in order to lead to procreation (even if it won't for those particular individuals).
However, you've ignored my challenge to say why, if the term marriage needn't be about a pairing that involves the procreational act, it needs to be about sex at all, and couldn't also be applied to other life-long loving committed non-sexual pairings such as ageing celibate siblings, or a widowed child looking after a parent.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Jun 25, 2012 22:48:36 GMT
I questioned about it being defined by procreation (which does involve sex (most of the time)). Changing the definition of marriage to encompass non-sexual relationships of different types was not what I was suggesting.
Maybe a useful definition (or part of) is that marriage involves the legally recognised joining together of two unrelated people in a long-term sexual union? In the cases you suggest there is already a biological connection vertically or horizontally.
I don't know. I think it goes back to the problem of Civil Partnerships being regarded as not a 'proper' marriage. We have them now but for whatever reason it isn't thought of as enough and still divisive.
Not sure what the solution is, but it is not something I will get as upset by as some people seem to get about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jun 26, 2012 5:37:57 GMT
I questioned about it being defined by procreation (which does involve sex (most of the time)). Changing the definition of marriage to encompass non-sexual relationships of different types was not what I was suggesting. No, it's what I was suggesting following on from the first part - if it needn't be about a procreation-type pairing, why not extend it to non-sexual relationships? But what is the justification of restricting it to sexual unions? Isn't that more arbitrary than restricting it to a procreation-type pairing? Yes, but without the legal rights of shared property and inheritance that married couples and civil partners have. Why shouldn't siblings who live together - or a carer and a disabled person who are unrelated and have no sexual relationship but are just as committed in their partnership - or even trios or groups of four - have those rights? I guess it's because it's such an uninspiring, unromantic sounding name. As someone never likely to marry or be in a civil partnership, I regard it as an interesting debate from a logical standpoint. I can see why civil partners may envy the more romantic-sounding terminology that male-female couples have for their relationships, but I just struggle to see why, if it were legally broadened in the secular sphere to encompass male-male and female-female sexual pairings - which _are_ different, because they are not the sort of pairings that have evolved to lead to procreation of the species - I struggle to see why it shouldn't be broadened to include all loving relationships. Marriage can be about having children, or it can be about love, loyalty, commitment to stand by one another through sickness and health - what justification is there for drawing the line on the basis of whether or not there is any sort of sexual relationship? And therefore ruling out blood relatives, and groups of more than two people, from being married? It just seems to me to be the logical consequence of the equally-valid-lifestyle-choices* argument for redefining marriage. Because I can't see why recreational sex is more fundamental and more legitimate to drawing a definition barrier at than procreational sex - with all its particular child-related long-term commitment consequences. If you destroy the case for restricting the term marriage to husband-and-wife couples, I don't think you have a case left for denying it to any sort of loving committed relationship. *and they are equally valid, that's not in debate - but so are non-sexual committed relationships, etc. Edit: Oh, I can't resist... What about... close middle-aged celibate blood relatives who live together and become the adoptive parents of a child? If marriage is made broader than a procreation-type pairing for life, shouldn't _they_ be recognised in law as being married? Martin |
|
|
|
Post by skillex on Jul 14, 2012 10:30:55 GMT
Well if we were to link marriage to procreation then presumably those who cannot have children would be unable to marry? Martin, I know you state a heterosexual couple are "the sort of sexual pairing that has evolved in order to lead to procreation" and this is true to an extent, but in which case what about a couple in their seventies who wanted to get married? Evolution specifically has struck the woman from the ability to procreate so presumably following your logic you would deny them the chance to marry?
You also discuss the notion of long-term, celibate friends wishing to marry, even if they have a non-sexual relationship. Well, assuming they are of the opposite sex there is absolutely nothing in law to stop this!
You bring up examples of relatives wishing to live together, etc being able to marry. However, there is no apparent demand for this. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of human beings (but I accept not all people) do wish to live together with a long-term partner, with whom they will have an emotional and sexual relationship. Whether this is a biological or emotional imperative it applies to gay, straight, bisexuals, etc. In modern terms, "marriage" has come to mean a loving, sexual, co-habiting relationship to an extent (though plenty people are married but live apart, co-habit but not married, etc - it's a formalisation of being "partners" which those in mixed sex relationships can take as seriously or non-seriously as they wish or in same sex relationships cannot).
On a broader point, we now live in a secular society. "Marriage" is not the exclusive property of one church or a group of churches, indeed, a number of churches are proponents of same-sex marriage. Why should the Catholic Church's "religious freedom" to oppose same-sex marriage carry any more weight than the Quakers' or the Scottish Unitarian Church's "religious freedom" to support it? If same sex marriage was allowed then churches would not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies with same sex couples, just as the Catholic Church was not forced to perform a marriage ceremony for my Church of Scotland parents when they were married many years ago.
Marriage has also never been strictly defined anyway. At different times and places around the world polygamy has been allowed, arranged or forced marriages have been and often still are common. Marrying for economic/social/political need rather than "love" was common across Europe for centuries. In fact, less than a hundred years ago in the UK a married woman was her husband's property by law. Surely marriage in the UK has been considerably redefined since then?!
In all honesty, I didn't think the distinction between marriage and civil partnership was too important myself until very recently. Until it was pointed out the ridiculousness of a provision in modern law for something that is "separate but equal", which made me realise in a modern, secular society is an anathema. I am not at all equating the formal status of gay relationships in the UK in 2012 with the situation the US civil rights movement was trying to deal with, but it did make me realise that the moral and legal principle applies.
EDITED TO ADD FOR CLARITY: which is where the "separate but equal" arguments sprung from, regarding provision of education etc to whites and blacks in the US South.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 14, 2012 13:50:00 GMT
All good points.
Martin
|
|
kayevcee
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
The Weather Wizard
Posts: 5,527
|
Post by kayevcee on Jul 14, 2012 20:37:04 GMT
Well said, Skillex. More eloquent than my froth-mouthed gibberings, anyway.
-Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 15, 2012 7:27:50 GMT
Well said, Skillex. More eloquent than my froth-mouthed gibberings, anyway. If I were trying to ensure that the liberal point of view got an airing in a predominantly conservative forum rather than that the conservative point of view got an airing in a predominantly liberal forum, I would hope I would make such points. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jul 16, 2012 18:20:38 GMT
Well argued, Skillex.
-Ralph
|
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Jul 28, 2012 15:48:49 GMT
Hm.
Part of the problem here is that the level of disagreement about fundamental happiness amongst humans has reached such a mighty height, that all we seem able to agree upon in modern society is the principle of tolerance, or personal freedom.
I don't mean to suggest we ought to have less personal freedom - rather, I think it needs to be said that personal freedom is tied to conscioussness. If people only act on impulse, or act solely on the basis of what commercial society teaches them - without reflection - they are not free in the full sense of the word. True, their actions are technically free in the low sense of being uncoerced - and all freedom - even the highest forms of freedom - must have this basic fact at their root (for not even the best choices are really good for us if they are made under threat or under force).
Nevertheless, we are often so preoccupied talking about how to satisfy every postulate for tolerance, that we tend to ignore any discussion of the good life or the question of true happiness. Please note that I am not thus implying that the question of true happiness has some simple answer - rather, I suggest that part of true happiness is embarking on the search for an answer to the question.
A society which is too politically correct and too sensitive to tolerance not to ask such questions effectively bars the question (and therefore the possibility of an answer) from public debate.
Marriage understood as the formal binding together of a sacred love between a man and a woman is arguablely the natural path for mankind towards fulfillment of true happiness.
It might not be - I grant this.
But if we treat marriage as simply an empty shell, the definition of which we can alter whily-nilly - then we are being so open minded as to be closed to the possibility that marriage is a real thing that exists to make us happy, not simply some whim that we define and redefine as we go.
Happiness for men is generally only possible in a loving relationship with women - and vice versa. Homosexuality precludes this kind of happiness because it pairs two men or two women - thereby depriving men and women of the benefits of their company.
There is much psychological research and data, not to mention good old logical argumentation and common sense which indicates that men cannot find fulfillment without the love of a woman and that women cannot find fulfillment without the love of a man.
There is overwhelming data that suggests that children brought up in broken households are more likely to be unhappy and face greater challenges in life.
Now this is not supposed to be an argument against allowing homosexuals the right to "marry" - to have civil unions that entail certain legal rights available now to heterosexual couples. This is a seperate (in my opinion) issue.
That said - I sometimes feel that what is really going on is an attack against marriage and the family intended to make us forget what the two concepts really mean for us. If marriage and family are natural states the make for happy, independent and content human beings - and we erase them from our shared vocabulary - we make problems for ourselves.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Jul 28, 2012 16:13:29 GMT
Sorry Pete, I think you're a good guy but this post annoyed me quite a lot. But if we treat marriage as simply an empty shell, the definition of which we can alter whily-nilly - then we are being so open minded as to be closed to the possibility that marriage is a real thing that exists to make us happy, not simply some whim that we define and redefine as we go. You realise that marriage has changed an awful lot in the past few decades even. If as you say that "marriage is a real thing that exists to make us happy" then that's an argument for same-sex marriage, you realise that, right? Traditional, Biblical marriage includes the following: - Polygomy (Not saying that's wrong, but I'm sure a lot of religious people do, but hey, lots of those Biblical prophets got up to it!)
- Being allowed to rape a girl and then marry them if you pay their father 50 pieces of silver
- Women being the property of their husband on a par with other possessions
- A widow who had not borne a son was required to marry her brother in law
- Slave owners could force two slaves to marry and submit sexually to each other (oh yes slavery is fine too!)
If you're in a battle you're allowed to take any young virgin girls to rape (and then I guess marry becuase you raped them).
Well, thank goodness we DO redefine things like that based on our current moral thinking or we'd still be living in some sort of barbaric dark age, though we'd still have traditional values of marriage! Happiness for men is generally only possible in a loving relationship with women - and vice versa. Homosexuality precludes this kind of happiness because it pairs two men or two women - thereby depriving men and women of the benefits of their company. W-what? Sorry, that's a ridiculous statement which completely staggers me. Just because you say something is true doesn't mean it is true. For example, the following statement has exactly the same amount of weight behind it: "Happiness is only possible if you have a beard. To shave the beard off deprives man of having a beard and thus happiness." There is much psychological research and data, not to mention good old logical argumentation and common sense which indicates that men cannot find fulfillment without the love of a woman and that women cannot find fulfillment without the love of a man. Where is this research and data? I haven't seen any of it. Also in fact 'common sense' would tell you the opposite - if you are geared towards loving someone of the same sex, then being forced into some sort of sham marriage with someone of the opposite sex because that is 'what you do' brings about depression and unhappiness and broken homes. And yes that happens a lot. There is overwhelming data that suggests that children brought up in broken households are more likely to be unhappy and face greater challenges in life. It's important to note that a homosexual relationship =/= a broken home. Crikey. A bit of research: www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htmMost research shows that two same sex parents are no more unlikely to be bad parents or have a bad influence than any others. There is only one study which has claimed the opposite, and that has been shown to be horribly flawed (tiny research sample, plus they decided to count 'homosexual parents' as any parents who had had a homosexual experience in their entire lives. Not, you know, two same sex parents. |
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Jul 29, 2012 8:03:16 GMT
There is a big difference between something being "in the Bible" and something "being Biblical." All of the examples you gave are indeed in the Bible, and in that sense are "Biblical" - but from the Christian point of view, Jesus expressed himself quite clearly to the Jews who were asking him about when it is possible to divorce your wife. Jesus argued that marriage is a union before God that is indissolvable. This was not simply a romantic argument. He was being asked whether you could leave your wife if she has bad breath (amongst other things) and clearly replied that Husbands cannot leave their wives (and vice-versa). Notice, however, that Jesus "argued" - Jesus did not ordain. This is Jesus' teaching in contradistinction to the Law of the Jews which informed all of the examples you cited which primarily came from the old testament. Jesus was not a "modern" person - but you don't have to be "modern" to argue rationally in favor of something that is true, because what is true - by definition - holds true independent of what period of history we're discussing. Human nature is what it is independent of what time-frame you're in. Jesus was trying to find arguments that would apply to all people at all times. It is, of course, possible to disagree - and to give arguments for why one disagrees. But notice that the whole basis (at least with regard to Christianity) has shifted from the Jewish "the Law says so!" to Christ's habit of talking to people - finding truth in a peaceful exchange of ideas. As for the fear of living in a "barbaric" dark age - this implies that there could be dark ages which are not "barbaric" but are still dark. Tocqueville called this a "soft tyranny" (sounds quite unbarbaric), and I would argue we are living in one now. Little barbarism (at least in the west), but much darkness indeed. You are right - I gave no actual arguments for the position. Instead, I did mention there there is much data as well as logical argument that favors this position. I'll limit myself here to recomending one book (although there are quite a few which make similar points) - namely Eric Fromm's The Art of Loving en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_LovingAgain, you can disagree with the essence of his arguments, just as you can disagree with many other thinkers and philosophers who make similar arguments - however, I have not yet seen any essential argument that can overtake the logic of the (for lack of a better word) Tragic View of Homosexuality. In fact, the predominant argument in support of the "natural" tendency of homosexual behavior on the basis of genetics (the idea that homosexuality is a matter o 'nature and not nurture') only compounds the Tragic View of homosexuality. No decent person would ever argue that homosexuals are bad because they are incapable of attaining full happiness (who is?) - but certainly no sane person would suggest that homosexuality was an equally fulfilling condition as heterosexuality - unless you first debunk the notion that heterosexual love is by nature a more fulfilling and happy love. Again - I have seen no one do it. Instead, I often see attempts to demonstrate the while the theory of happy heterosexual love might sound convincing, the practice is not - hence the tendency to point fingers at divorce rates, spousal abuse, broken families, abusive parents etc etc etc - all to demonstrate that at best, heterosexual love is a false ideal - that people should stop being romantic idealists. Homosexual love, which is a lower love from heterosexual love, is also an easier love - and therefore more solid and sustainable. The implication seems to be that if heterosexuals give up their idealism and cave to the modern view that love is in the eye of the beholder - they can finally relax rather than pursuing a false ideal that never works. This argument is compelling on the face of it, but not principled and therefore not convincing to me. As I noted above - there's Eric Fromm's book 'The Art of Love.' I also recomend the excellent "Love and Friendship" by Allan Bloom. Another great book is Rousseau's Emile, which argues the same position by showing how to educate a boy so he becomes a man. The extent to which all of this does actually make up an argument and not a rant can be seen by the fact that up until fairly recently the World Health Organization even deemed homosexuality to be a psychological disorder. I am not a fan of the WHO, but it just seems interesting to me that this view was so prevelant that even they agreed with it. Finally - I would never force people into anything - especially not a relationship. In fact, from the point of view of the Catholic Church at least, all forced marriages are not real marriages. Cannon law is pretty clear on that - if one of the parties to a marriage is forced or is there due to fraud - then you can go through the whole ritual from beginning to end - but no sacrament will have taken place. Thankfully, this principle is generally present in all civil law in most of the civilized world - forcing and cheating people into something is wrong. The fact is that most homosexuals who enter heterosexual marriages do so because of "social pressure" and because of their own shame and regret regarding their condition. But this simply means they are the cause of their (and their eventual families') own misery. Rather than confronting their condition - they hide it. At least this was what was done in many cases (and is still done to a large extent) over the past few decades. Now, it is true, homosexuals more often than not "come out of the closet" - which in a manner of speaking is even good, since truth is always to be encouraged; and a person cannot become happy unless he confronts his real self. But I do not think that many homosexuals now openly gay are confronting their real selves - instead, they seem to be taking advantage of the depravity of heterosexuals who themselves have lost their moral bearings and everyone is celebrating the loss of any rational basis for happy human relationships - in short, hedonism. It all depends on your definition of what "good parenting" is. The article you cite even uses the phrase "effective parents." In my view, a homosexual couple by definition deprives children of the opportunity to witness the dynamic of inter-gender love between a mother and a father, and therefore deprives the children of the opportunity to see how men and women are symbiotic with respect to one another and need one another for fulfillment. Ergo, by definition, no matter how well the child performs in school or how much money he makes at work (and by what standard do we say that these are the most important benchmarks of parental success?) - the child will be ill-fit to enter into a wholesome relationship. It all depends on what you define as a good upbringing - if, as I do - you define a good upbringing as one in which there is a good mother and a good father - then a homosexual couple cannot ever achieve this standard. Naturally, I do not favor making the ideal the enemy of the good. Single parents can be good parents too, and a homosexual couple can feed, cloth and care for a child as well. But a single mother cannot be a father. And two fathers cannot give the child a real mother. To argue that children do not need a loving mother and father is something that makes little sense - unless we want to raise a society of atomistic individuals who feel alienated from the start and are therefore easy pray for corporate and state propaganda because they require recognition that they never acquired inside loving families. In any event - I've noted three books above, and most articles and research papers never even try ti disprove the arguments in those books, because no one reads them. But this doesn't mean they're not there. Finally - from my personal experience - I have never actually met a happy gay person. A successful gay person - indeed - but a happy one - no. At best, I have met gays who are more well adjusted to their predicament and able to be happy "in spite of" it, or gays who - as time goes by - become more and more aware of their tragedy. Naturally, none of them actually put it in these words. The most tragic thing, in my view, is that by compelling the resignation from the idealism of love, the modern pro-homosexual movement has also subsequently resigned from the idealism of friendship, which traditionally was always bound up with love. Thus the one philosophical possibility for a measure of homosexual happiness - a philosophy of loving friendship - has, the like proverbial baby, been thrown out with the bathwater. Homosexuals do not, in general, study friendship because the justification for their homosexuality is found in their disregard of love - and without an understanding of that ideal, the lesser ideal of friendship between two men also becomes impossible. Pete |
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Jul 29, 2012 10:05:18 GMT
Right.
I am putting my moderators hat on here. You are entitled to your opinions, however much I may disagree with them. Which, by the way is a lot. However, do try and ensure that you are not presenting them as facts. We do like healthy debate here.
Also please refrain from describing homosexuality as a predicament or a condition, this is an ugly and very dismissive way to talk about it.
Thanks
Andy
|
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Jul 29, 2012 10:17:00 GMT
Understood - if anyone thought I was writing about facts; then to clarify - of course I'm not. At least not in the sense that we talk about facts of history of physical and checmical laws as being "factual."
I am, however, also trying not to make value judgements (as opposed to stating facts), because values imply subjective opinions.
What I am trying to do is ask whether it is possible to get closer to some kind of truth about one condition which is universal for all of us: the human condition.
That said, with all due respect - how can it be ugly and discriminatory to talk about homosexuality as a condition - but quite fine to speak of the human condition?
I did not mean to imply, by calling it a condition, that it was something bad - like, for instance, a heart condition.
Instead - I just wanted to inquire into homosexual love and friendship as a "sub-condition" of the human condition.
No offence was meant. So my apologies if someone felt offended.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Jul 29, 2012 10:21:34 GMT
That said, with all due respect - how can it be ugly and discriminatory to talk about homosexuality as a condition - but quite fine to speak of the human condition? Pete Thanks Pete. How can it be ugly and discriminatory? Because that is how the word is sadly used. Thanks for clarifying that wasn't your intended usage, but any time you see people generally refer to homosexuality, it is not in the same way as the human condition, but rather looking at it as if it was a disease or a disorder and generally sets a negative and quite often pejorative tone for any discussion of it. As I said, thanks for clarifying that is not what you were intending. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Jul 29, 2012 11:33:09 GMT
There is a big difference between something being "in the Bible" and something "being Biblical." All of the examples you gave are indeed in the Bible, and in that sense are "Biblical" - but from the Christian point of view, Jesus expressed himself quite clearly to the Jews who were asking him about when it is possible to divorce your wife. Jesus argued that marriage is a union before God that is indissolvable. This was not simply a romantic argument. He was being asked whether you could leave your wife if she has bad breath (amongst other things) and clearly replied that Husbands cannot leave their wives (and vice-versa). Notice, however, that Jesus "argued" - Jesus did not ordain. This is Jesus' teaching in contradistinction to the Law of the Jews which informed all of the examples you cited which primarily came from the old testament. Yes but I was mentioning that because it's often held up as a moral exemplar. And also because pretty much all of the anti-homosexuality stuff people quote from the Bible comes from the Old Testament. Jesus never (unless I've missed it somewhere) comes out and states that homosexuality is wrong. It just wasn't even on his radar as a pressing issue. Surely people should be more concerned about things Jesus DID condemn than go off on crusades about things he DIDN'T. Sure you can twist words and cherry pick phrases in the style of "oh Jesus agreed with God's plan and that was for no homosexuality' but then you're back into the minefield of God's plan in the Old Testament also giving the thumbs up to rape, slavery and the murder of people who ate shellfish. You are right - I gave no actual arguments for the position. Instead, I did mention there there is much data as well as logical argument that favors this position. I'll limit myself here to recomending one book (although there are quite a few which make similar points) - namely Eric Fromm's The Art of Loving en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_LovingAgain, you can disagree with the essence of his arguments, just as you can disagree with many other thinkers and philosophers who make similar arguments - however, I have not yet seen any essential argument that can overtake the logic of the (for lack of a better word) Tragic View of Homosexuality. Sorry, but just mentioning an obscure psychology book from the 50s of all times and then not mentioning what the arguements are for the outrageous claim that somehow the following is true. How can I refute an argument that I don't know what it is? No decent person would ever argue that homosexuals are bad because they are incapable of attaining full happiness (who is?) - but certainly no sane person would suggest that homosexuality was an equally fulfilling condition as heterosexuality - unless you first debunk the notion that heterosexual love is by nature a more fulfilling and happy love. Well call me insane then. I can't conceive how you could even begin to argue such a supposition, that somehow love between a man and a woman is more fulfilling by default. At the end of the day, there's no homogenous 'MAN' and 'WOMAN'. We don't fall in love with genders, we fall in love with people. There are plenty of hetrosexual relationships which are fulfilling, there are plenty which are horrible and full of misery, and being a 'man' and 'woman ' doesn't magically change that. There are plenty of homosexual relationships which are happy and plenty which aren't. This is because we are all individuals and all people with our own drives, loves, lifes, fears. Trying to say that a man can only be happy if he loves a woman, risks stripping people of their individuality. Frankly, the only difference between a same sex and opposite sex relationship is the ability to procreate. Is that your argument, because I honestly don't know. In that case does that mean if someone is infertile that they will never have a happy and fulfilling love? Does that mean that parents who adopt children will never be happy and fulfilled? Whatever you think is self evident isn't, because I honestly cannot parse your argument. Homosexual love, which is a lower love from heterosexual love, is also an easier love - and therefore more solid and sustainable. The implication seems to be that if heterosexuals give up their idealism and cave to the modern view that love is in the eye of the beholder - they can finally relax rather than pursuing a false ideal that never works. I have literally no idea what this means. Easier love? Lower love? What? The extent to which all of this does actually make up an argument and not a rant can be seen by the fact that up until fairly recently the World Health Organization even deemed homosexuality to be a psychological disorder. Well, 1990. And the 80s were a time of great homophobia. It's not an argument at all. You could make the same argument that all the great scientists once thought that black people were lower forms of life. Or that giving someone a lobotomy could cure the common cold, both widespread medical theories in the 20th century at one point, and thankfully debunked now. It doesn't mean that there's a grain of truth, just that at one point people were just too ignorant to want to look any further. "Homosexuality's horrible, it's a psychological problem, lets put it on the list, wash our hands and move on." You can't defend that sort of attitude. In my view, a homosexual couple by definition deprives children of the opportunity to witness the dynamic of inter-gender love between a mother and a father, and therefore deprives the children of the opportunity to see how men and women are symbiotic with respect to one another and need one another for fulfillment. Ergo, by definition, no matter how well the child performs in school or how much money he makes at work (and by what standard do we say that these are the most important benchmarks of parental success?) - the child will be ill-fit to enter into a wholesome relationship. Again, there have been studies into this, and they have shown that there is no negative psychological impact inherant in having two parents of the same sex. As much as you can say "but there needs to be a man and a woman because that will magically make a child good" this isn't supported by the evidence. People aren't genders, they are people. To argue that children do not need a loving mother and father is something that makes little sense - unless we want to raise a society of atomistic individuals who feel alienated from the start and are therefore easy pray for corporate and state propaganda because they require recognition that they never acquired inside loving families. You seem to be under the impression that a same sex couple cannot have a loving, stable, moral relationship. That's so obviously not the case that I'm not sure how to respond to this. Finally - from my personal experience - I have never actually met a happy gay person. A successful gay person - indeed - but a happy one - no. At best, I have met gays who are more well adjusted to their predicament and able to be happy "in spite of" it, or gays who - as time goes by - become more and more aware of their tragedy. Naturally, none of them actually put it in these words. I've never met a happy Welshman, what's your point? The most tragic thing, in my view, is that by compelling the resignation from the idealism of love, the modern pro-homosexual movement has also subsequently resigned from the idealism of friendship, which traditionally was always bound up with love. Thus the one philosophical possibility for a measure of homosexual happiness - a philosophy of loving friendship - has, the like proverbial baby, been thrown out with the bathwater. Homosexuals do not, in general, study friendship because the justification for their homosexuality is found in their disregard of love - and without an understanding of that ideal, the lesser ideal of friendship between two men also becomes impossible. Sorry Pete, there are words here but I just can't parse them. Are you saying that same sex relationships aren't love? Surely if you're talking about the 'idealism of love' then actually the opposite is true, and that it's more important to be honest and true to who you are and love who you love rather than try to hide and fit into an arbitary social norm of 'man plus woman'. Can a gay person not have friends? Is that what you're saying? I don't get it. |
|
My point was that if both marriage and civil partnership were available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, then they would indeed be two different names for the same legal thing (depending only on whether or not the couple in question wanted to be called married). But at present, they are two different words for two different things - formalised heterosexual partnerships and formalised homosexual partnerships.
