Vatican Proposes Stunning Reforms

[Buster Bluth]

Benefits are a separate issue that can be debated independently. The poster I was replying to specifically used the word "illegal."

How about unrecognized?

It's getting a bit nitpicky in here.

 

[gkIrish]

Benefits are a separate issue that can be debated independently. The poster I was replying to specifically used the word "illegal."

I personally don't think ANYONE should receive benefits for marriage. Discrimination against single people is no better than discrimination against gay people.

Lol...

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm a Catholic libertarian, I'm not the "Religious Right."

I'm aware, which is why I didn't say "your." You're one of the loudest libertarians on the board (I mean that as a positive, a large contributor to good discussion), and the libertarian thoughts were coming out boldly in a freedom/benefits complaint. haha.

Simply saying, those of the Religious Right lose even more ground if it turns into a benefits debate. Libertarians occupy other positions normally, and I like some ideas there. Particularly that the government recognizes no marriages whatsoever and provides only civil unions, and that marriages become a purely religious matter.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

76 things banned in Leviticus:

Banned by the Bible
76 things banned in Leviticus
Here’s chapter and verse on a more-or-less comprehensive list of things banned in the Leviticus book of the bible. A decent number of them are punishable by death.
Unless you’ve never done any of them (and 54 to 56 are particularly tricky), perhaps it’s time to lay off quoting 18:22 for a while?
1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)
3. Eating fat (3:17)
4. Eating blood (3:17)
5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)
6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)
7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)
8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)
9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)
10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)
12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)
14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)
17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)
18. Eating – or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)
19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)
21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)
23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)
26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)
27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)
28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)
31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)
32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)
33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)
34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17)
35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)
38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)
39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)
40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)
41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)
42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
44. Stealing (19:11)
45. Lying (19:11)
46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)
48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)
49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)
51. Spreading slander (19:16)
52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)
53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
57. Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)
58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)
60. Trimming your beard (19:27)
61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
62. Getting tattoos (19:28)
63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)
64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)
65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34)
67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)
70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)
71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)
72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)
75. Selling land permanently (25:23)
76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)

So a few small tidbits. Insects have six legs not four legs, and slavery is just fine as long is it is not Israelites and virtually all of these mean little in the modern world.

The Bible also echoes the importance of the law in several places in the new testament as well.

Matthew 5:18-19
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Rev. Richard Fuller was 110% correct when he said "What God sanctioned in the old testament and permitted in the new testament cannot be considered sin."

How many of you have relaxed the penalties god has imposed for the violations listed above?

 

[Irish YJ]

I'll first say.... I think the decline of family (and community) is the biggest single cause of our overall decline. That said, the young do have issue with many of the Churches stances. Is gay marriage the only thing impacting the family??? I'd argue that it is one of the smallest contributors. And I'm not flag waving liberal or pro-gay. Just logical and honest about fact and data.

Things do need to change. What exactly, I don't know. I for one have a problem with blind acceptance of words in the Bible. Thank you Cack for one example of many. Also, research how the Bible was created, how the Catholic holidays were determined.... Faith is a great thing, and it doesn't always have to be blind.

 

[Domina Nostra]

And lastly I think it's just sad to compare homosexuals with polygamy/incest/and bestiality. It's kinda unbecoming for a man of your intelligence.

I love this! The whole argument comes down to consent. Period. That's it. Consent inevitably opens the door for adult trios. Why would it not? So polygamy is in. But, but...

The funny thing is YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT!!! The real reason this argument loses is because it is "unbecoming." The majority that has been cobbled together in support of gay marriage--including lots of young, open-minded women--HATE the idea of polygamy (as you said, "we know for a fact that the vast majority of polygamist relationships are multiple women for one man"--notice, that in not actually an argument, but we all know what you're getting at). These people don't want to hear about polygamy, they want to hear about two love-struck young men whose love is thwarted and they way to feel like civil-rights activists! They don't want to be on the same team with extreme Mormons and Muslims.

So rather than admit that the argument for the one supports the other, we hide behind the politically-correct sentiment and label the person who points this out as essentially a homophobe to shut down the conversation.

And how would China having too many men lead to polygamy? I don't follow...

 

[greyhammer90]

I love this! The whole argument comes down to consent. Period. That's it. Consent inevitably opens the door for adult trios. Why would it not? So polygamy is in. But, but...

The funny thing is YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT!!! The real reason this argument loses is because it is "unbecoming." The majority that has been cobbled together in support of gay marriage--including lots of young, open-minded women--HATE the idea of polygamy (as you said, "we know for a fact that the vast majority of polygamist relationships are multiple women for one man"--notice, that in not actually an argument, but we all know what you're getting at). These people don't want to hear about polygamy, they want to hear about two love-struck young men whose love is thwarted and they way to feel like civil-rights activists! They don't want to be on the same team with extreme Mormons and Muslims.

So rather than admit that the argument for the one supports the other, we hide behind the politically-correct sentiment and label the person who points this out as essentially a homophobe to shut down the conversation.

And how would China having too many men lead to polygamy? I don't follow...

You assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a bored first-world liberal civil rights activist-wannabe is no less wrong/simplistic/dickish than anyone who disagrees with you calling you a homophobe.

 

[BobD]

That's a funny list.

So PIIHB and threesomes aren't on there.

What if her period started WHILE you're having sex?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I love this! The whole argument comes down to consent. Period. That's it.

It's almost like you didn't even read the words I put on the screen for ya...

Consent inevitably opens the door for adult trios. Why would it not? So polygamy is in. But, but...

The funny thing is YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT!!! The real reason this argument loses is because it is "unbecoming." The majority that has been cobbled together in support of gay marriage--including lots of young, open-minded women--HATE the idea of polygamy (as you said, "we know for a fact that the vast majority of polygamist relationships are multiple women for one man"--notice, that in not actually an argument, but we all know what you're getting at). These people don't want to hear about polygamy, they want to hear about two love-struck young men whose love is thwarted and they way to feel like civil-rights activists! They don't want to be on the same team with extreme Mormons and Muslims.

Swing and a miss, on all accounts.

So rather than admit that the argument for the one supports the other, we hide behind the politically-correct sentiment and label the person who points this out as essentially a homophobe to shut down the conversation.

Stop using "the argument," there is more than one argument here chief. The argument of consent sure as shit carries over, but that's not the only argument.

And how would China having too many men lead to polygamy? I don't follow...

I'll break it down for ya...assume there is a population of ten men and ten women. They are all straight. One of the men marries three of the women, now there are seven women for nine guys...and two dudes are going to be left jacking off for the rest of their days.

Due to the one-child policy and the abortion of tens of millions of female fetuses there are tens of millions of men who will never marry, so we can get a glimpse of what a society looks like when there is an overabundance of single men. It's not an optimal society, go explore it on the google machine.

 

[Buster Bluth]

What if her period started WHILE you're having sex?

You look her dead in the eyes and say "IT'S MR. WEENIE TIME" and keep on cruising.

 

[bobbyok1]

I think the most interesting thing about all of this is how many people I see on Facebook incorrectly posting about these "awesome" changes in Church doctrine. It's not changing (or so I believe Whiskey and others on here), but they think it is and they're talking about how it's strengthening their Catholicism. That says something.

Buster,

I think you make a good observation here. And it is one of the frustrating things about American culture in general. We are such an opinionated people, yet our opinions are quite often based on poor information and sloppy research . . . as is my post

 

[greyhammer90]

You look her dead in the eyes and say "IT'S MR. WEENIE TIME" and keep on cruising.

"God wills it!"

 

[Domina Nostra]

You shouldn't need reasons for something, but rather against something. If there isn't a good reason for it to be illegal, then it shouldn't be illegal.

Right, you should need reasons for why the the state should legally, financially, and pedagogically support homosexual coupling as a foundation of society, which is what traditional marriage is.

The argument isn't about whether homosexuals can make life commitments that they call marriage. That has nothing to do with the law or marriage law, in particular. Its about whether there is a legitimate reason to be include them in the institution that the State has traditionally supported for all kinds of incredibly practical purposes: first and foremost, the propagation and education of children.

 

[Domina Nostra]

It's almost like you didn't even read the words I put on the screen for ya...



Swing and a miss, on all accounts.



Stop using "the argument," there is more than one argument here chief. The argument of consent sure as shit carries over, but that's not the only argument.



I'll break it down for ya...assume there is a population of ten men and ten women. They are all straight. One of the men marries three of the women, now there are seven women for nine guys...and two dudes are going to be left jacking off for the rest of their days.

Due to the one-child policy and the abortion of tens of millions of female fetuses there are tens of millions of men who will never marry, so we can get a glimpse of what a society looks like when there is an overabundance of single men. It's not an optimal society, go explore it on the google machine.

Ok. So your point is that if there is a potential bad consequence from someone's free choice that you don't like, you deem it "societal," and now you can ban it. Problem solved. Got it.

China's control government can just out law it and force them to do what they want, don't worry, they are not inhibited by ancient religious constraints and prejudices.

{EDIT} Are you really arguing that a woman in Utah should not be allowed to enter a polygamist marriage because of the problems communist China's forced one child policy has caused when it intersects with chinese polygamy?

 

[pkt77242]

Right, you should need reasons for why the the state should legally, financially, and pedagogically support homosexual coupling as a foundation of society, which is what traditional marriage is.

The argument isn't about whether homosexuals can make life commitments that they call marriage. That has nothing to do with the law or marriage law, in particular. Its about whether there is a legitimate reason to be include them in the institution that the State has traditionally supported for all kinds of incredibly practical purposes: first and foremost, the propagation and education of children.

No it is about whether there is a legitimate reason to exclude them from the institution of marriage which has nothing to do with children. We let people who can't have children get married and we let old people well past the child bearing age get married. Your reasoning has been found wanting by all of the appeals courts so far. Also current studies (as I have posted on previous pages) show that children of same-sex marriage turn out just as well as children from opposite sex marriage.

Our focus as a society should be on creating stable long term marriages whether same-sex or opposite sex. Stable marriages are good for children that is what the research bears out not whether it is a same-sex marriage or opposite-sex marriage.

 

[Irish YJ]

That's a funny list.

So PIIHB and threesomes aren't on there.

What if her period started WHILE you're having sex?

Wash immediately and go to confession.....

 

[Domina Nostra]

No it is about whether there is a legitimate reason to exclude them from the institution of marriage which has nothing to do with children. We let people who can't have children get married and we let old people well past the child bearing age get married. Your reasoning has been found wanting by all of the appeals courts so far. Also current studies (as I have posted on previous pages) show that children of same-sex marriage turn out just as well as children from opposite sex marriage.

Our focus as a society should be on creating stable long term marriages whether same-sex or opposite sex. Stable marriages are good for children that is what the research bears out not whether it is a same-sex marriage or opposite-sex marriage.

Do you really think that society's subsidizing of marriage had nothing to do with children? I trust you that some courts have held that to be the case, but what does that have to do with the Church's position on anything. Court's have held all kind s of stuff and contradict each other all the time.

The fact that the institution includes more people than can actually have children has nothing to do with the traditional justification for supporting it financially. Lots and lots of laws have cut offs that are more inclusive than they need to be, both out of necessity, a concern for privacy, and simplicity.

Where you are right is in the far that American marriage has definitly evolved in a way that made the original purposes of the state's involvement in it less and less obvious.

 

[DogDaysIrish]

"The Church" is just getting a bit stuffy for my liking these days... Who gives a shit what the Priests, the rabbis, the whatever's are saying.... Are they putting money in our pockets? Are they feeding us? Are they putting shoes and clothing on our kids? Sorry to disappoint here kids, but religion is the biggest gimmick going these days. Don't tell me how to live my life or anyone else. And furthermore, those sick pricks who've been molesting little boys while in the priesthood, I'll see you in hell apparently since I don't practice following God, the Easter Bunny or the Toothfairy.

Go Irish.

 

[BobD]

So was that list written prior to or after someone had already committed those sins?

 

[pkt77242]

Do you really think that society's subsidizing of marriage had nothing to do with children?

The fact that the institution includes more people than can actually have children has nothing to do with the purposes of supporting it financially. Lots and lots of laws have cut offs that are more inclusive than they need to be, both out of necessity, a concern for privacy, and simplicity.

Where you are right is in the far that American marriage has definitly evolved in a way that made the original purposes of the state's involvement in it less and less obvious.

We subsidize having children because it is good for society. We subsidize it whether you are married or single.

From the legal standpoint, having children has nothing to do with marriage. If you go before the justice of the peace and get married there is nothing about children in it (I was married in the Catholic Church and so yes having children was part of it). Marriage as far as the legal aspect of it (what the state covers) is about signing a contract with the other person that gives certain rights benefits, etc.

The government has to have a legitimate reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. The children argument has been debunked both because we allow people who can't have children to marry (or are past child bearing age) and because studies show that children raised by same-sex parents do just as well as children from opposite-sex couples. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage has been found wanting on both ends.

 

[gkIrish]

"The Church" is just getting a bit stuffy for my liking these days... Who gives a shit what the Priests, the rabbis, the whatever's are saying.... Are they putting money in our pockets? Are they feeding us? Are they putting shoes and clothing on our kids? Sorry to disappoint here kids, but religion is the biggest gimmick going these days. Don't tell me how to live my life or anyone else. And furthermore, those sick pricks who've been molesting little boys while in the priesthood, I'll see you in hell apparently since I don't practice following God, the Easter Bunny or the Toothfairy.

Go Irish.

 

[DogDaysIrish]

Stuff it in pal.... I've got all day.

 

[gkIrish]

Stuff it in pal.... I've got all day.

Lol you don't know what a popcorn gif is do you?

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

"The Church" is just getting a bit stuffy for my liking these days... Who gives a shit what the Priests, the rabbis, the whatever's are saying.... Are they putting money in our pockets? Are they feeding us? Are they putting shoes and clothing on our kids? Sorry to disappoint here kids, but religion is the biggest gimmick going these days. Don't tell me how to live my life or anyone else. And furthermore, those sick pricks who've been molesting little boys while in the priesthood, I'll see you in hell apparently since I don't practice following God, the Easter Bunny or the Toothfairy.

Go Irish.

 

[DogDaysIrish]

Lol you don't know what a popcorn gif is do you?

I certainly do. I'm with ya... I've been around these parts awhile.

 

[BobD]

I certainly do. I'm with ya... I've been around these parts awhile.

2 WHOLE months?

 

[ACamp1900]

2 WHOLE months?

Smdh... Giants fans...

 

[Buster Bluth]

Ok. So your point is that if there is a potential bad consequence from someone's free choice that you don't like, you deem it "societal," and now you can ban it. Problem solved. Got it.

Stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting what I said. You look defeated when you do it.

{EDIT} Are you really arguing that a woman in Utah should not be allowed to enter a polygamist marriage because of the problems communist China's forced one child policy has caused when it intersects with chinese polygamy?

...are you on acid?

 

[DogDaysIrish]

Yeah.... Hot mess. I wonder what Buster Posey thinks about all this?

 

[Buster Bluth]

"The Church" is just getting a bit stuffy for my liking these days... Who gives a shit what the Priests, the rabbis, the whatever's are saying.... Are they putting money in our pockets? Are they feeding us? Are they putting shoes and clothing on our kids? Sorry to disappoint here kids, but religion is the biggest gimmick going these days. Don't tell me how to live my life or anyone else. And furthermore, those sick pricks who've been molesting little boys while in the priesthood, I'll see you in hell apparently since I don't practice following God, the Easter Bunny or the Toothfairy.

Go Irish.