Vatican Proposes Stunning Reforms

[greyhammer90]

"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.

As a guy who wanted this post to be gone by tomorrow morning:

 

[BobD]

Smdh... Giants fans...

I should have used the sarcasm font. I know whats up with that shifty character.

 

[DogDaysIrish]

2 WHOLE months?

Smdh... Giants fans...

I should have used the sarcasm font. I know whats up with that shifty character.

Moi???

 

[Irish YJ]

I'm so upset. #55. Now I have to go sacrifice my neighbors labradoodle.

#wordofman

 

[DogDaysIrish]

As a guy who wanted this post to be gone by tomorrow morning:

No such luck.

 

[Domina Nostra]

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



...are you on acid?

You said:

Polygamy/polyamory has a victim: society.

And how is society a victim? You said:

(1) 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.

That's why I thought you were arguing that the mere fact that polygamist unions usually have multiple women and one man was an independent reason against it. Did you mean something else? If not, how does that undermine the ability of a woman to consent?

You also offered this:

(2) 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.

That's why I thought you were arguing that China's problem with polygamy was a reason to ban it here. And who is going to be entering a polygamist marriage here? So far, women in Utah. So my question was, what do the struggles of the chinese to deal with their one child policy have to do with her ability to freely consent? If you are wondering why I brought up the one child policy, I googled chinese polygamy at your advice, and it said that China's polygamy problem is a result of its one child policy (because there is a lot of pressure to have your only child be a boy). I assumed you knew that since you were the one who told me to google it.

What were you arguing, if I was so off? The acid and the sting of defeat are making it hard for me to understand you.

 

[IrishMoore1]

"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.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Also when did this go from a Marriage conversation to a sexual conversation.

This debate started over the merits of the Church's (unchanged) stance on marriage. That stance is controversial because it asserts the importance of sexual complementarity, which necessarily excludes homosexual couples.

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.

When did this become a legal argument? To be clear, I don't oppose equal rights for homosexuals. There are only two coherent political philosophies in the US today-- Libertarianism and Progressivism. Both are liberal, and both abhor unequal treatment before the law based on inherent qualities. Virtually all research to date has confirmed that: (1) human sexuality is a spectrum instead of a dichotomy; and (2) same sex attraction is largely in-born, not chosen. Thus, there is no legally coherent way to argue against SSM within the American political tradition.

But we weren't discussing legalities. We were discussing the Church's sexual ethics v. modern sexual ethics. The former is ancient, coherent and (imo) True. The latter is brand new, incoherent, and (imo) harmful.

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.

Again, I'm well aware of the legalities here. My argument is that consent, while important in sexual ethics, is not sufficient to distinguish Good from Evil.

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?

I wouldn't support banning it. As I mentioned above, there's no coherent argument for doing so within our political tradition. But our political tradition is basically a secularized form of Protestantism, and the extreme individualism it's based on is incompatible with Catholicism. So I support equal rights for homosexuals as the least bad solution available, but I also believe the Church's doctrine on human sexuality to be correct. Imperfect political compromise v. Objective Truth.

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?

It wouldn't harm you directly, at least not in the Jeffersonian sense of picking your pocket or breaking your leg. But it might harm you indirectly, by undermining sexual norms and traditions that have served humanity pretty well for thousands of years.

You seem to be putting great store in the recent Supreme Court decisions in favor of SSM. I hope you'd agree that isn't dispositive of the morality of SSM. After all, this is the same judicial body that upheld a statute permitting the compulsory sterilization of the "unfit", confirmed the Federal government's right to place Japanese-Americans into internment camps, etc.

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.

Well, kudos to you for at least valuing pluralism enough to tolerate those you disagree with. But there are a lot of people who aren't so tolerant. The Church benefits from tax exempt status because it does a lot of charity work, but many secularists feel like the Church should lose that status because it refuses to marry homosexual couples. Those attacks are already happening, and are gaining in strength and number every day.

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.

Well, SSM is an incredibly recent phenomenon, and it's entirely the product of modern sexual ethics (which is premised on nothing but consent). Am I missing an important argument here? I don't think equal protection arguments are separate, since they all flow from the same political assumptions.

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).

See above, Buster. I'm not arguing against the legality of SSM. I'm criticizing modern sexual ethics.

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

Not quite, since I'm making a moral argument here. Wouldn't you agree that killing, due to its finality, generally carries greater moral significance than sexual acts do? We routinely kill animals without their consent, so why is consent sufficient to distinguish beastiality here?

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.

This is the type of argument scary Progressives advance in favor of regulating everything under the sun. There's a strong correlation between soda and obesity; so is Bloomberg morally justified in banning it from NYC? Alcohol creates all sorts of societal problems; so was the 18th Amendment a good idea? Just because some polygamist arrangements devolve into emotional and sexual abuse isn't sufficient justification to outright ban them all. I mean, one's right to sexual self-determination is a big fvcking deal, right? And what about those groups who include more women than men? Why should they be legally stigmatized by some Mormon fundamentalists in Utah?

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

So what? The magic of modern science (yay, Progress!) allows us to test siblings in order to determine whether their union carries a significantly higher risk of birth defects. So if a brother and sister get tested, and aren't at a significantly higher risk, what's the modern moral case against it? Aren't we imposing incalculable harm upon these lovers by stigmatizing them with a sexual norm which has been rendered obsolete by modern medicine?

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'm genuinely hurt that you and greyhammer interpreted my posts that way. I'm not equating homosexuals to polygamists, incestuous couples, or zoophiles. As the Synod's statement recognized, loving and stable homosexual couples are capable of producing much good.

What I'm unimpressed with is modern sexual ethics; specially the philosophy that underlies it. And I'm criticizing it by showing that it can be deployed to justify all sorts of things that we still feel uncomfortable with. Now, we can follow the "Consent as Moral Lynchpin" argument to its logical conclusions, and agree that anything goes as long as everyone signs a waiver. But I doubt many here are willing to endorse that, and with good reason.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I thought the Church said homosexuality was "lust" not love?

Is this a new stance of the Church or am I misremembering?

 

[Domina Nostra]

I'm genuinely hurt that you and greyhammer interpreted my posts that way. I'm not equating homosexuals to polygamists, incestuous couples, or zoophiles. As the Synod's statement recognized, loving and stable homosexual couples are capable of producing much good.

Excellent post. I disagree with a lot of it, but very thoughtful.

Just to be clear, the Synod has not made a statement that reflects any kind of consensus of the Bishops there. This was just a first "report," and it was supposed to be echoing discussions/viewpoints that have been occurring at the Synod to spur further discussion. There is significant debate about whether the Report is even doing that accurately, and its causing a firestorm.

I thought the Church said homosexuality was "lust" not love?

Is this a new stance of the Church or am I misremembering?

I think the teaching would be that homosexuals are perfectly capable of love, in terms of friendship, but that their sexual desire was lust, in the sense that it was intrinsically disordered.

There is some willful conflating of the two, in order to give the impression of change, which is what is causing a lot of controversy.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Vatican Proposes Stunning Reforms

Whiskey, solid post, per usual.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but did I understand you to concede that there isn't a legal basis for a ban on SSM in our society as it stands today?

Also, I'm still not completely understanding how the logical conclusion of sexual ethics based on consent would encompass beastiality. You quote and respond to an argument which includes marriage to animals and don't distinguish it from polygamy. From your earlier comments about evolution, I think what you're doing is trying to make an argument wholly removed from revelation, but I'm not sure that this argument reaches many at all. Specifically, there are a few in this thread (like me), who are Catholic and believe in the soul and revelation but still struggle with the Church's stance on sexual ethics.

I might be misrepresenting your points. Actually, I probably am because I am off tomorrow and got drunk (woo!). Just hoping you could clarify if not expound.

Edit: also, I don't know that we need revelation to come up with a categorical distinction between people and animals. See Aristotle

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't want to put words in your mouth but did I understand you to concede that there isn't a legal basis for a ban on SSM in our society as it stands today?

I can't see a legal basis that will withstand challenge on Equal Protection grounds. I can't find the exact quote at the moment, but de Tocqueville famously wrote that when forced to choose between Liberty and Equality, Americans will always choose the latter because inequality is offensive to a democratic people. The sudden and overwhelming victory of SSM is a good example of that.

Also, I'm still not completely understanding how the logical conclusion of sexual ethics based on consent would encompass beastiality. You quote and respond to an argument which includes marriage to animals and don't distinguish it from polygamy. From your earlier comments about evolution, I think what you're doing is trying to make an argument wholly removed from revelation, but I'm not sure that this argument reaches many at all. Specifically, there are a few in this thread (like me), who are Catholic and believe in the soul and revelation but still struggle with the Church's stance on sexual ethics.

Polyamory and incest are the two closest pitfalls on the slippery slope of consent-based sexual ethics. Beastiality is a bit different, since it involves the ethical treatment of animals (a separate topic). But I do think it's related. Modern consent-based ethics can be used to justify just about anything between any number of consenting adults. And human society currently uses (and always has used) animals in far more violent and ethically questionable ways than as sexual objects. So I don't think the fact that animals are incapable of consent is much of a counter-argument here. They can't consent to being hunted or slaughtered for food either, but most people have no moral qualms about those activities at all. Once we abolish all taboos regarding human sexuality, what's to keep zoophilia out of bounds as long as the animals are well-cared for?

I might be misrepresenting your points. Actually, I probably am because I am off tomorrow and got drunk (woo!). Just hoping you could clarify if not expound.

Hopefully you're drinking something good. Did I miss a post in pkt's thread?

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

I can't see a legal basis that will withstand challenge on Equal Protection grounds. I can't find the exact quote at the moment, but de Tocqueville famously wrote that when forced to choose between Liberty and Equality, Americans will always choose the latter because inequality is offensive to a democratic people. The sudden and overwhelming victory of SSM is a good example of that.



Polyamory and incest are the two closest pitfalls on the slippery slope of consent-based sexual ethics. Beastiality is a bit different, since it involves the ethical treatment of animals (a separate topic). But I do think it's related. Modern consent-based ethics can be used to justify just about anything between any number of consenting adults. And human society currently uses (and always has used) animals in far more violent and ethically questionable ways than as sexual objects. So I don't think the fact that animals are incapable of consent is much of a counter-argument here. They can't consult to being hunted or slaughtered for food either, but most people have no moral qualms about that at all.



Hopefully you're drinking something good. Did I miss a post in pkt's thread?

Thanks for the response. I won't attempt to respond this evening but I'm really interested in following up on the consent argument on my own.

As for the booze, picked up a Shipyard IPA sampler. Nothing mind blowing but Shipyard does alright.

 

[Cackalacky]

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

IDK but Noah's daughters did a bang up job before it was written.

 

[Cackalacky]

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.

How about dependency? The transfer of property upon death? The intake of property upon matrimony. All of these in modern culture are inextricably linked with the rights and privileges granted through the legal recognition of marriage. Has been since hunters and gatherers started the practice 10 millennia ago.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Good thread, guys. I'm enjoying the view from the cheap seats.

 

[BobD]

IDK but Noah's daughters did a bang up job before it was written.

The reason I ask is if nobody had done some of those things prior, then whoever thought up much of that list is a sicko. If it came out after, there could be a good argument that it was compiled using "morality of the time".

 

[Cackalacky]

The reason I ask is if nobody had done some of those things prior, then whoever thought up much of that list is a sicko. If it came out after, there could be a good argument that it was compiled using "morality of the time".

I have been know to use "subjectivity" to respond to these types of questions but I will not for the sake of my own sanity.

I have also previously responded to natural law aspect of this before, but I am not in the mood nor taking the time to describe how population genetics and my take on how human cultural evolution works.

 

[Cackalacky]

The reason I ask is if nobody had done some of those things prior, then whoever thought up much of that list is a sicko. If it came out after, there could be a good argument that it was compiled using "morality of the time".

In all seriousness, some of that list is derived from things that served a purpose for that particular culture in that particular region of the world. For example keeping land within a family would be a source of wealth so it's understandable how a piece of productive land in an unproductive region would be beneficial. Obviously the taboo is non-existent today but rather promoted via capitalism. Also is the unclean foods . As Chris Rock so awesomely put it, 2000 years ago, a pork chop could kill you. But today we know how to prepare food better. So, for me the moral authority and recommended (required by God) punishments, even within the historical context is severely lacking and has zero bearing in our present world.

 

[Corry]

@breakingnews

Catholic bishops fail to approve document with watered-down section aimed at ministering to gay people - @AP bit.ly/1sAgVHx
2:08pm - 18 Oct 14

Bishops scrap welcome to gays in sign of split

 

[BGIF]

@breakingnews

Catholic bishops fail to approve document with watered-down section aimed at ministering to gay people - @AP bit.ly/1sAgVHx
2:08pm - 18 Oct 14

Bishops scrap welcome to gays in sign of split

Two other paragraphs concerning the other hot-button issue at the synod — whether divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Communion — also failed to pass.

This effects more people.