Vatican Proposes Stunning Reforms

[Rack Em]

The "Truth" was used to support slavery in the 1800s. It was used to promote feudalism and authoratarianism in the past. People will use whatever they want to promote their worldviews and force their morals onto others. Gay marriage literally affects nothing for straight Christian people, but there are still people who want it banned because of what they believe. That's not how the world works anymore. It's not a new flavor of the month. Homophobia has always been wrong and will continue to always be wrong. People are just more accepting now because people are more enlightened and caring than ever now. There are still violent homophobes who gaybash and harm gays, but most young people can accept others now.

I'm assuming you mean incorrigible-conservative-rednecks and Jesus-freak-right-wingers, not the progressive agenda that belittled me through law school for having certain beliefs on birth control, marriage, etc.

And the second bolded portion reinforces that you're not talking about the progressive agenda that has developed in the last 5-10 years. It's not the flavor of the month in the grand scheme of civilization (which you have used as a measuring stick). It's always been that way.

For the record, opposing same-sex marriage is not even in the same ballpark as "gaybash and harm gays." You refuse to have a conversation about this because you're unwilling to make that distinction.

But it's cool because young people are accepting of others....just the "others" who agree with their political bent.

 

[pkt77242]

And the American political left has it's own version of these idiots-- 9/11 "Truthers", etc. That's why I said I haven't read a credible source making that argument.



The arguments in favor of SSM can also be used to justify polyamory and incest. Are you cool with both of those, too? If not, that significantly undermines their force. And why is sex with animals out of bounds due to their inability to consent, but it's still OK to hunt them, or raise them for food? They certainly don't consent to those actions. And if you think children are clearly different from beasts in this way, you've basically conceded that humans are categorically different from animals in a way that evolution can't explain.

Trying to make "consent"--itself a pretty problematic idea, given the power dynamics at work in most sexual relationships-- the sole arbiter of sexual ethics creates more problems than it solves.



Based on the liberal philosophy undergirding American politics, no, the government does not have a good reason to ban polyamory, or incest, or even beastiality. I'd suggest that that fact alone calls into question the entire liberal project.



I think your moral intuition is correct.

Sexual ethics isn't simply a subset of morality. It's the ultimate anthropological gauge, because it is so strongly related to what one believes a human being is. We're really getting at first principles here.

I am not arguing that both sides don't have these type of people but credible authors or not many people listen to these people and believe what they say (unfortunately on both sides, this isn't a conservative or liberal thing it is a problem in the U.S. in general).

Also when did this go from a Marriage conversation to a sexual conversation. It has already been decided by the courts that sex between homosexual people is perfectly legal and that the government needs to stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. So if that is what is bothering you that was decided by Lawrence vs Texas.

Children can't legally give consent to marriage because it is a legal contract. Minors typically can not sign a legal contract, thus you can't marry a child. That one is pretty easy. Animals can not give consent to marriage either (unless you have found a talking donkey who can sign their name). Those are stated facts.

Whiskey have you given one legal reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal, you have given many "moral" reasons but under our existing constitution how can we ban it?

Honestly if the Supreme Court made Polyamory legal tomorrow, I probably wouldn't bat an eye. Definitely not for me, but how does it harm someone else? How am I hurt because Joe down the road has two wives?

 

[pkt77242]

I'm assuming you mean incorrigible-conservative-rednecks and Jesus-freak-right-wingers, not the progressive agenda that belittle me through law school for having certain beliefs on birth control, marriage, etc.

And the second bolded portion reinforces that you're not talking about the progressive agenda that has developed in the last 5-10 years. It's not the flavor of the month in the grand scheme of civilization (which you have used as a measuring stick). It's always been that way.

For the record, opposing same-sex marriage is not even in the same ballpark as "gaybash and harm gays." You refuse to have a conversation about this because you're unwilling to make that distinction.

But it's cool because young people are accepting of others....just the "others" who agree with their political bent.

I fully believe that any religion should not have to marry gay people if they don't want to, and I have no problem if they want don't want to allow gay people in their congregation etc.

When it comes to society though what legal reason do you have to oppose same-sex marriage? Our constitution requires a legal reason to discriminate against citizens and I have yet to see a viable reason to do that in this case.

 

[greyhammer90]

And the American political left has it's own version of these idiots-- 9/11 "Truthers", etc. That's why I said I haven't read a credible source making that argument.



The arguments in favor of SSM can also be used to justify polyamory and incest. Are you cool with both of those, too? If not, that significantly undermines their force. And why is sex with animals out of bounds due to their inability to consent, but it's still OK to hunt them, or raise them for food? They certainly don't consent to those actions. And if you think children are clearly different from beasts in this way, you've basically conceded that humans are categorically different from animals in a way that evolution can't explain.

Trying to make "consent"--itself a pretty problematic idea, given the power dynamics at work in most sexual relationships-- the sole arbiter of sexual ethics creates more problems than it solves.



Based on the liberal philosophy undergirding American politics, no, the government does not have a good reason to ban polyamory, or incest, or even beastiality. I'd suggest that that fact alone calls into question the entire liberal project.



I think your moral intuition is correct.

Sexual ethics isn't simply a subset of morality. It's the ultimate anthropological gauge, because it is so strongly related to what one believes a human being is. We're really getting at first principles here.

I disagree strongly with this view. I don't feel like spending two hours on my phone explaining why, but I disagree strongly enough that I feel it's important to let you know that.

 

[AdmiralBackhand]

Matthew 7:
 13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
 14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

What the world says is right doesn't mean it is. Does that make me homophobic or hated? Call me whatever you want as I am against homosexuality, or any other sin. The world hated Christ first. It is a rejection of Him, He will handle it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The arguments in favor of SSM can also be used to justify polyamory and incest. Are you cool with both of those, too? If not, that significantly undermines their force. And why is sex with animals out of bounds due to their inability to consent, but it's still OK to hunt them, or raise them for food? They certainly don't consent to those actions. And if you think children are clearly different from beasts in this way, you've basically conceded that humans are categorically different from animals in a way that evolution can't explain.

Trying to make "consent"--itself a pretty problematic idea, given the power dynamics at work in most sexual relationships-- the sole arbiter of sexual ethics creates more problems than it solves.

Based on the liberal philosophy undergirding American politics, no, the government does not have a good reason to ban polyamory, or incest, or even beastiality. I'd suggest that that fact alone calls into question the entire liberal project.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with you more.

I think it's fairer to say that "Some arguments in favor of SSM..." not "The arguments..." which insinuates all of the arguments. Specifically, the most obvious argument shared there is consent.

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. For me, where is the victim in SSM? I don't see one, not even society--which is a totally legitimate victim and really one of the foundations of law (ie that the state is also the victim in a crime).

For bestiality, well hello consent doesn't quite work. So right out of the gate cross it off.

Polygamy/polyamory has a victim: society. We do have histories of places where polygamy is practiced, and know for a fact that the vast majority of polygamist relationships are multiple women for one man. In addition we know what happens in societies with plenty of unmarried men. It's happening in China and it's taking a demonstrably negative toll over there. Furthermore we see how easy it is to indoctrinate young women and prime them for a life of polygamy...real shady shit. So I would argue that the victim in polygamy is society and that is totally a totally legitimate reason.

With incest we also have a long history of birth defects, so the victim there is obvious.

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.

 

[Catholics_Rule]

Yeah sorry to burst the bubble for some of you who want the Church to be San Francisco progressive.

Not happening. Being more welcoming? Yeah that could definitely come out of this.

Changing birth control stances? Nada.
Female priests? Nope.
Gay marriage? LOL.

The Catechism isn't getting an overhaul on sexual issues. It has been extremely consistent since reproductive technology/homosexuality/etc. burst onto the scene.

This

 

[GoldenDomer]

+1 for Rack Em.


Can the term homophobic cease to exist?

Just because you are against gay marriage doesn't mean you dislike gay people.

I don't like baseball. I don't hate people who like it or play it.

 

[AdmiralBackhand]

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.

Leviticus 18:
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

 

[Cackalacky]

Leviticus 18:
Michigan22Michigan Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Michigan23Michigan Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Respectfully, and with sincerity, the book of Leviticus is an abomination.

 

[greyhammer90]

I don't think I've ever disagreed with you more.

I think it's fairer to say that "Some arguments in favor of SSM..." not "The arguments..." which insinuates all of the arguments. Specifically, the most obvious argument shared there is consent, obviously.

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. For me, where is the victim in SSM? I don't see one, not even society--which is a totally legitimate victim and really one of the foundations of law (ie that the state is also the victim in a crime).

For bestiality, well hello consent doesn't quite work. So right out of the gate cross it off.

Polygamy/polyamory has a victim: society. We do have histories of places where polygamy is practiced, and know for a fact that the vast majority of polygamist relationships are multiple women for one man. In addition we know what happens in societies with plenty of unmarried men. It's happening in China and it's taking a demonstrably negative toll over there. Furthermore we see how easy it is to indoctrinate young women and prime them for a life of polygamy...real shady shit. So I would argue that the victim in polygamy is society and that is totally a totally legitimate reason.

With incest we also have a long history of birth defects, so the victim there is obvious.

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.

Buster nailed it especially the last sentence. Thanks for saving my thumbs.

 

[AdmiralBackhand]

Respectfully, and with sincerity, the book of Leviticus is an abomination.

Please elaborate.

 

[Cackalacky]

Please elaborate.

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.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't think I've ever disagreed with you more.

I think it's fairer to say that "Some arguments in favor of SSM..." not "The arguments..." which insinuates all of the arguments. Specifically, the most obvious argument shared there is consent, obviously.

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. For me, where is the victim in SSM? I don't see one, not even society--which is a totally legitimate victim and really one of the foundations of law (ie that the state is also the victim in a crime).

For bestiality, well hello consent doesn't quite work. So right out of the gate cross it off.

Polygamy/polyamory has a victim: society. We do have histories of places where polygamy is practiced, and know for a fact that the vast majority of polygamist relationships are multiple women for one man. In addition we know what happens in societies with plenty of unmarried men. It's happening in China and it's taking a demonstrably negative toll over there. Furthermore we see how easy it is to indoctrinate young women and prime them for a life of polygamy...real shady shit. So I would argue that the victim in polygamy is society and that is totally a totally legitimate reason.

With incest we also have a long history of birth defects, so the victim there is obvious.

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.

Your entire argument is built on the flawed premise that opponents of SSM want to limit the freedom of same sex couples. Tell me a place where a same sex couple can't rent a hall, hire an officiant, say vows in front of family and friends, serve cashew bourbon chicken, and fly off for a Disney cruise the next day. I'll wait.

The argument over gay marriage is not about freedom, it's about benefits. NOTHING is "illegal," whether you're in Alabama or San Francisco.

 

[AdmiralBackhand]

Thanks for your response. I cannot fit what I think it right and adhere to it and not take in the whole of scripture. Not going to pick and choose based on my own understanding.

 

[pkt77242]

Thanks for your response. I cannot fit what I think it right and adhere to it and not take in the whole of scripture. Not going to pick and choose based on my own understanding.

Do you eat any pig products (bacon, pork, etc), do you eat any shellfish? Mix fabrics in clothes? Trim your beard? Trim the sides of your hair? Sell land? Do you ever sit in the presence of all elderly? If so you are picking what rules to follow.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Thanks for your response. I cannot fit what I think it right and adhere to it and not take in the whole of scripture. Not going to pick and choose based on my own understanding.

I bet you have a sweet beard. Pics or it didn't happen

 

[Cackalacky]

Thanks for your response. I cannot fit what I think it right and adhere to it and not take in the whole of scripture. Not going to pick and choose based on my own understanding.

I am not intending to be rude but you would be picking and choosing by point of fact if you are guilty of any of those 76 things I listed. I can garauntee the average person breaks several of those a day. I broke 12 of them this morning. The simple fact is our modern world would not function if these things were actually implemented by a government. I mean can you imagine what real estate brokers and bankers would do?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Leviticus 18:
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

The great thing about living in the United State is that I don't have to live with any of that hanging over my head if I don't want it.

You can think homosexuality is the most abhorrent thing on the planet, you really can; and you can be 10000% against Catholic (or Methodist, Islamic, etc) gay marriage, that's all fine too. But the idea that you can withhold the rights of other people because of your opinion/religion is just completely insane and ironically "unamerican." If you're against gay marriage, take it up with your religion, not the state.

(And yes I totally understand that this thread is about Catholicism but I feel that it's turned a bit towards an argument for gay marriage. I do not intend to insult Catholicism on this matter.)

Please elaborate.

My favorite thing about discussing this on a Notre Dame football forum is easily Leviticus 19:19.

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."

So basically the Fighting Irish wear uniforms made of PURE SIN.

 

[wizards8507]

Do you eat any pig products (bacon, pork, etc), do you eat any shellfish? Mix fabrics in clothes? Trim your beard? Trim the sides of your hair? Sell land? Do you ever sit in the presence of all elderly? If so you are picking what rules to follow.

Leviticus is not the catechism that establishes the sanctity of a man and woman made in the image and likeness of God. I'd encourage you to research Damon Owens and the Theology of the Body but I know you won't.

 

[greyhammer90]

Your entire argument is built on the flawed premise that opponents of SSM want to limit the freedom of same sex couples. Tell me a place where a same sex couple can't rent a hall, hire an officiant, say vows in front of family and friends, serve cashew bourbon chicken, and fly off for a Disney cruise the next day. I'll wait.

The argument over gay marriage is not about freedom, it's about benefits. NOTHING is "illegal," whether you're in Alabama or San Francisco.

That argument would be fine if marriage was purely something that was only recognized in the church, but it's not. It's a state recognized legally binding practice that has far reaching implications within tax law, estate law, privacy rights, etc. Saying that gays are given "every freedom" is patently untrue. I don't even care if there is a way for gays to get the same benefits without getting married. Then we're just discussing the finer points of the "seperate but equal" doctrine. But if you want to make that argument by all means...

 

[IrishinSyria]

never mind. Beat Florida State.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Leviticus is not the catechism that establishes the sanctity of a man and woman made in the image and likeness of God. I'd encourage you to research Damon Owens and the Theology of the Body but I know you won't.

That wasn't the point that was being argued, though. The claim was that Admiral cannot and does not pick and choice the parts of the Bible that he follows. I'm not sure what this has to do with that. Parenthetically, is that something accessible online? I need some good reading for the courtroom this week.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Your entire argument is built on the flawed premise that opponents of SSM want to limit the freedom of same sex couples. Tell me a place where a same sex couple can't rent a hall, hire an officiant, say vows in front of family and friends, serve cashew bourbon chicken, and fly off for a Disney cruise the next day. I'll wait.

The argument over gay marriage is not about freedom, it's about benefits. NOTHING is "illegal," whether you're in Alabama or San Francisco.

What? This is borderline pedantic. Regardless I don't think the argument is flawed at all even in a benefits argument, as those benefits come from a secular state. I would even say it makes the Religious Right's arguments against SSM more trivial as they, as you say, aren't stopping marriage but stopping the social benefits...and in that case their position is truly asinine.

 

[wizards8507]

That argument would be fine if marriage was purely something that was only recognized in the church, but it's not. It's a state recognized legally binding practice that has far reaching implications within tax law, estate law, privacy rights, etc. Saying that gays are given "every freedom" is patently untrue. I don't even care if there is a way for gays to get the same benefits without getting married. Then we're just discussing the finer points of the "seperate but equal" doctrine. But if you want to make that argument by all means...

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.

 

[AdmiralBackhand]

I am not legalistic and I know I am not perfect. Any sin I commit, I speak to God about. I am working to be free from sin because of what Christ did on the cross, not so I could sin freely. I can only point people to the Truth, not worry how they don't accept it.

 

[greyhammer90]

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.

 

[wizards8507]

What? This is borderline pedantic. Regardless I don't think the argument is flawed at all even in a benefits argument, as those benefits come from a secular state. I would even say it makes the Religious Right's arguments against SSM more trivial as they, as you say, aren't stopping marriage but stopping the social benefits...and in that case their position is truly asinine.

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

 

[pkt77242]

Leviticus is not the catechism that establishes the sanctity of a man and woman made in the image and likeness of God. I'd encourage you to research Damon Owens and the Theology of the Body but I know you won't.

Admiral Blackhand literally said that he doesn't pick and choose what to follow in the Bible because it isn't up to him to decide what is right and wrong, and that he follows all of it. I pointed out common things that people don't follow in the Bible. Also you are being an ass with the end part, but no shock there.

 

[GoldenDomer]

Rep this if you are a practicing Catholic who has not been to confession in a while... lol... shame on us.

Admiral Blackhand is making me feel guilty.