homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: A new Christian line on gay marriage (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: A new Christian line on gay marriage
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Indeed I seem to recall some controversy about heterosexual couples in the UK desirous of civil partnerships and were denied. There definitely seemed to be a sense that they weren't "playing the game," that a civil partnership is just what you call marriage when two men or women do it. This attitude may be challenged by a recent administrative ruling by the Conservative government here that British civil partnerships don't constitute marriage for Canadian purposes. I suspect that this is the usual ineptitude on LGBT... issues at play here on our part but it's nevertheless an interesting wake-up call to too much complacence about the SBE category.

(Funnily enough when the Tories were first elected Harper made a half-hearted bid to revisit the Civil Marriage Act with a view to replacing same-sex marriages with British-style "I Can't Believe It's Not Marriage" civil unions. In Quebec, the only jurisdiction in the kingdom with civil unions, benefits are virtually identical and both options are open to all couples).

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If your argument were to be consistent I would no longer be able to use the words man or woman, but could only ever refer to people as humans.

No, if our argument were to be consistent you would refer to them as humans when what you meant were humans regardless of gender (as in fact you frequently DO including in this thread, you're just not so self-conscious about it), and you would use the words man or woman when it actually mattered whether the human in question was a male human or a female one.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
and you would use the words man or woman when it actually mattered whether the human in question was a male human or a female one.

Ah, just let me check my universally accepted and exhaustively authoritative textbook that tells me when (and when not) I'm allowed to make that distinction.

[Eek!] What? There isn't one! What do we now?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
and you would use the words man or woman when it actually mattered whether the human in question was a male human or a female one.

Ah, just let me check my universally accepted and exhaustively authoritative textbook that tells me when (and when not) I'm allowed to make that distinction.

[Eek!] What? There isn't one! What do we now?

It's not a question of being 'allowed', it's a question of whether you actually CHOOSE to make the distinction or not, and asking, why would you want to? Why are you choosing to use that language instead of the alternative?

Whether you, in your everyday speech, wish to spend time emphasising 'man or woman' when you could actually just say 'person' or 'human being' is ultimately your own business, but people will draw conclusions from your method of speech. I think if you did this an awful lot of the time while also repeatedly mentioning how men and women are treated the same, your listeners would be entitled to ask if you were protesting too much.

The point being, if you keep doing this you're sending a mixed message. "Look how nice I'm being to women, I'm treating them exactly the same way as men! But you must never, ever forget that they're actually women. Not remotely like us men, but for now we'll treat them just the same as men!"

But you can do that if you want, and people will draw their own conclusions about your behaviour.

Now, when LAWS exhibit that kind of behaviour... it's pretty much the same result. Only the message is being broadcast throughout the land.

[ 27. October 2011, 06:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It's worth emphasising, looking at the last couple of posts, that I've never referred to the idea of being 'allowed' or having 'permission'.

The language you choose to use reflects your mindset. If your mindset is to emphasise men and women as separate and distinct, you will use the 2 words. If your mindset is that in the circumstances gender is entirely irrelevant, you will pick the gender-neutral word such as 'person'.

Parliament chooses in almost all cases to use gender-neutral words. Whether you follow suit is your own decision.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's worth emphasising, looking at the last couple of posts, that I've never referred to the idea of being 'allowed' or having 'permission'.

I got that from your comment about your boss crossing it out of any legislation if you included it in a draft.

But you are right, this is discussion is going nowhere fast. Sorry for the tangent.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp. I say to my wife that she can have access to my body sexually whenever she wants (within reasonable limits dictated by external circumstances).

That part is not hard to grasp. What is incredibly squicky is the notion of formalised legalised contracts to do this as a default. As I say, I know several people in BDSM relationships who do have such agreements set up. And safewords.

quote:
I've gone back on a promise, one that I've signed into writing (if I have a traditional marriage contract).
Indeed. That a "traditional marriage contract" provides more sexual rights than many explicitely kinky BDSM contracts makes me very glad we've come a long way.

quote:
There's nothing necessary about this though.
There's nothing necessary about universal sufferage or women being allowed to own property either. But fortunately we've developed morally over the years.

quote:
It's a quite general trend in modern thought that a choice must be revisable to be valid / moral. But de facto this just means that you become incapable to really dedicate your life to a particular cause. If there always is an "escape clause", then there is nothing definitive.
There's always an escape clause in the law. But that doesn't prevent your own morality dedicating you. It simply means that your dedication should not be a part of the marriage or any other legal contract - you can not sell yourself into slavery for very good reasons. Your kinks are your own. And if you want kinky sex and property rights over each others' bodies, feel free.

But historical marriage is all about property rights. Which is why if you read the bible rape victims under some circumstances have to marry their rapists. We've moved on since then.

quote:
A modern is hence socially incapable of saying to another modern "it is you that I want". They can only say "it is you that I want now, and for the foreseeable future", which is not quite the same thing.
Do you actually know any moderns?

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Exactly, misused. This sounds like special pleading to me.

Except that as Croesus points out, "Separate but Equal" was used exactly as intended. This sounds like false equivalence to me.

quote:
I think you mean 'similar sounding arguments.' I can't remember who first picked up on the similarity to the phrase 'separate but equal' but the argument has been consistently 'guilty by association.'
The argument has consistently been "similar arguments to a similar end" - that of the denigration of one side in favour of another while throwing them a sop and trying to draw a cover over it.

quote:
I've never used the word separate, I have used the word different. Like men and women. They are both equal, but they are not the same. Is it sexist and equal to racism to have different toilets for men and women? Is that a form of apartheid?
Have you seen the queues for ladies loos at busy events?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That's right. There's heterosexual marriage which for hundreds (if not thousands) of years we've called marriage; and there's gay marriage for which we have recently introduced civil partnerships.

There's also polygamous marriage, morganatic marriages, consorts, concubines, common law marriage, and many other forms of marriage that have happened over time. All coming under the heading of marriage. It's a broad category, and gay marriage is just one part of it.

quote:
As I replied to Louise the obvious example that comes to mind is the struggle for women's equality. Women want the same rights as men, they do not want to be men.
So they don't want separate but equal. They want equal. They didn't campaign for "womens votes" to be something separate from votes. They campaigned for Universal Sufferage.

quote:
If your argument were to be consistent I would no longer be able to use the words man or woman, but could only ever refer to people as humans.
As has been pointed out, this is crap. There are distinctions but when talking about people for non-gender specific reasons you talk about "people".

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Hmm. This whole women's votes discussion brought to mind a bizarre scenario where the official announcement of election results involves a bloke (would certainly be a bloke) standing up and saying something like:

Smith: 572 male votes, 378 female votes
Jones: 1,235 male votes, 892 female votes
Warwick: 802 male votes, 1,029 female votes

And so on and so forth.

I suppose polling companies enjoy breaking down their poll results on the basis of age and gender and so on, but the official results never get analysed on this basis. Because it doesn't matter one jot for the purpose of determining who gets elected. Whereas it probably does matter for strategists trying to work out how their candidate can improve their chances of getting elected.

[ 27. October 2011, 12:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm. This whole women's votes discussion brought to mind a bizarre scenario where the official announcement of election results involves a bloke (would certainly be a bloke) standing up and saying something like:

Smith: 572 male votes, 378 female votes
Jones: 1,235 male votes, 892 female votes
Warwick: 802 male votes, 1,029 female votes

And so on and so forth.

But since "voting" was traditionally a male privilege, using the word for both male and female votes would just be treating women "as if they were men". A different term, preferably with a lot more syllables and bureaucratic overtones, should be invented like "women's ballotizing" or "female preference polling". So the announcement should go something like this:

quote:
Smith: 572 votes, 378 female ballot preferences
Jones: 1,235 votes, 892 female ballot preferences
Warwick: 802 votes, 1,029 female ballot preferences

There. Now women won't suffer the indignity of "be[ing] treated as if they were men". [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
No, it wasn't based on Darwin. And if you want to drag Herbert Spencer up, see my earlier post on how he was misused.

Exactly, misused. This sounds like special pleading to me.

Herbert Spencer was misused to attribute to Darwin views he didn't hold and his thought was described as 'darwinism' when it wasn't, so kindly tell me what's special pleading about that? You've been told already where the eugenicists got their views and you might as well take out the torch and pitchforks for farmers and gardeners because if they hadn't got those terrible ideas about how to breed prize bulls, horses, pigs, sweet peas etc, people wouldn't have made such leaps to humans. Therefore all farmers and gardeners are nazis.

If you hold there's a significant difference between humans and prize pigs then you can say that the argument for breeding better pigs mustn't be applied to humans, and there's no harm in arguing for breeding better pigs.

But gay people are humans, not some other category of creature at all, so you have to make a case why this kind of human vs human discrimination is ok, and not at all like that kind of nasty human versus human discrimination despite using the same arguments and looking like the same thing.

The old argument about 'women not wanting to be men' goes a long way back and has historically been used precisely to disadvantage and to discriminate against women by defining whatever right women were looking for as 'mannish' and implying that 'proper' women wouldn't want such a right therefore there had to be something wrong with women who sought such rights, and women who didn't want to be so labelled had better shut their pretty little mouths, if they knew what was good for them. So you're not doing yourself any favours by trotting out the old chestnuts of sexism to show how unexceptionable your arguments are. They dont pass muster on women either.

L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm. This whole women's votes discussion brought to mind a bizarre scenario where the official announcement of election results involves a bloke (would certainly be a bloke) standing up and saying something like:

Smith: 572 male votes, 378 female votes
Jones: 1,235 male votes, 892 female votes
Warwick: 802 male votes, 1,029 female votes

And so on and so forth.

But since "voting" was traditionally a male privilege, using the word for both male and female votes would just be treating women "as if they were men". A different term, preferably with a lot more syllables and bureaucratic overtones, should be invented like "women's ballotizing" or "female preference polling". So the announcement should go something like this:

quote:
Smith: 572 votes, 378 female ballot preferences
Jones: 1,235 votes, 892 female ballot preferences
Warwick: 802 votes, 1,029 female ballot preferences

There. Now women won't suffer the indignity of "be[ing] treated as if they were men". [Roll Eyes]

I bow in awe of your superior logic. [Overused]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As I say, I know several people in BDSM relationships who do have such agreements set up. And safewords.

The comparison is silly. Firstly, this is a mutually equal giving of consent, not some kind of master-slave relationship: conjugal rights and duties are symmetric, at least as far as the marriage contract itself is concerned. Secondly, a "safeword" provides a distinction between "being violated for pleasure" and "being violated too much". But the marriage contract is not about being violated at all. If sex with the spouse has become such a horrible displeasure that honoring one's conjugal duties would deserve the label "rape", then arguably the marriage should be separated (at least temporarily) and the couple should attend counseling together rather than force sex on each other. You are simply extending this aspect of the marriage contract far beyond its intentions.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That a "traditional marriage contract" provides more sexual rights than many explicitely kinky BDSM contracts makes me very glad we've come a long way.

It doesn't, see above. But we certainly have come a long way, for better or worse.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There's nothing necessary about this though.

There's nothing necessary about universal sufferage or women being allowed to own property either. But fortunately we've developed morally over the years.
I have argued that a contract of consent does not somehow automatically justify marital rape. Obviously there is a historical connection, but if we have developed morally over the years, then we should be able to disentangle one from the other.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It simply means that your dedication should not be a part of the marriage or any other legal contract - you can not sell yourself into slavery for very good reasons.

Again I don't think the comparison to slavery is fair. But in principle I'm very much in favor of distinguishing civil contracts from "moral dedication". However, I do not see why such moral dedication cannot be formal. A contract does not have to be "secular" in nature.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But historical marriage is all about property rights. Which is why if you read the bible rape victims under some circumstances have to marry their rapists. We've moved on since then.

Firstly, we are not talking about OT marriage. Secondly, there is little doubt that the consent given to marriage these days is much less determined by the economical interests of the families of the couple. But this is a general statement about life back then, really, not about marriage. The reasons for consent have changed, but not the requirement of consent.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Do you actually know any moderns?

Way too many...

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If sex with the spouse has become such a horrible displeasure that honoring one's conjugal duties would deserve the label "rape", then arguably the marriage should be separated (at least temporarily) and the couple should attend counseling together rather than force sex on each other. You are simply extending this aspect of the marriage contract far beyond its intentions.

<snip>

I have argued that a contract of consent does not somehow automatically justify marital rape. Obviously there is a historical connection, but if we have developed morally over the years, then we should be able to disentangle one from the other.

You're avoiding the main question. Doesn't your theory of pre-determined consent eliminate marital rape as a category? If one holds to your position that carte blanche consent can be irrevocably granted once, doesn't that make any sex that occurs within a valid marriage to be non-rape? And if it's possible to have non-consensual sex (a.k.a. rape) in marriage, can consent really be said to be "pre-determin[ed]"?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... But the marriage contract is not about being violated at all. If sex with the spouse has become such a horrible displeasure that honoring one's conjugal duties would deserve the label "rape", then arguably the marriage should be separated (at least temporarily) and the couple should attend counseling together rather than force sex on each other. You are simply extending this aspect of the marriage contract far beyond its intentions.

No further than it has been 'extended' in reality, for the great majority of human history and individuals. If this is an 'extension', it is an extension that was and still is socially acceptable in many times and places. So what a husband can do in private with his wife can be redefined by society. Check.

(And sex doesn't have to be a "horrible displeasure" to be unwanted at a certain time. Why do you think there are all those rules about when not to have sex in the OT? If there's rules about when a wife should not be required to have sex, then ... do I have to spell it out?)

quote:
I have argued that a contract of consent does not somehow automatically justify marital rape. Obviously there is a historical connection, but if we have developed morally over the years, then we should be able to disentangle one from the other.
So the sexual aspect of marriage has been redefined in practice - from the absolute right of the husband (I believe it is extremely unusual for women to rape men) to mutual consent. Check.

quote:
Firstly, we are not talking about OT marriage. Secondly, there is little doubt that the consent given to marriage these days is much less determined by the economical interests of the families of the couple. But this is a general statement about life back then, really, not about marriage. The reasons for consent have changed, but not the requirement of consent.
So marriage used to be primarily about family, property, and inheritance, but now it isn't. Now it's about mutual affection and support. Check.

So basically you're acknowledging that what marriage is, and why people get married, and what they can do to each other after they're married, have changed, and that society can make those changes. So why can't society decide that the people who get married can also change? If marriage is no longer primarily about guaranteeing a sexual partner for the husband, or passing wealth on to children, then why does it still have to be all about Slot A and Tab B? OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I somehow doubt that a rational debate about this topic will be possible. Suffice to say that if you promise to take care of my garden, but then refuse to actually do any physical work when it is needed, I'm not actually allowed to take a stick and beat you into submission. In general, that a contract is made does not imply that every means to enforce it is licit. Hence it does not follow from marriage as contract of mutual consent to sex that marital rape is licit.

That's pretty much how the old (and now invalid) UK line of authorities reasoned. If it was necessary to beat your wife in order to have sex with her, the beating was certainly a criminal assault, but the sex, to which you had a pre-determined consent, was not 'rape'.

Almost no one thinks like that any more. Sexual ethics have changed.

My point is that they have not thereby become unprincipled. There is a theme - and a very strong one - in our laws and in most people's opinions and behaviour, that makes mutual consent a primary criterion for determining the morality of sexual activity. That ethical theme leads to different conclusions to the more traditional views of sexual ethics, but it does not mean "anything goes". It is not a slippery slope with nothing to hold us from moral degeneracy.

I, personally, have a fairly conservative sexual ethic in many ways. I think that an ethic of consent as the main criterion allows many things that I consider dubious. But it plainly doesn't allow anything at all.

Thus I think that the "where will it stop?" argument against gay marriage is nonsense. Gay marriage is proposed on the basis of sound ethic principles - equality and consent. They aren't the whole of morality, but they are moral. It is quite possible to ask, and answer, and argue about other forms of marriage, and have principled reasons for allowing or disallowing them, and that doesn't change if we let gays marry as well.

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If sex with the spouse has become such a horrible displeasure that honoring one's conjugal duties would deserve the label "rape", then arguably the marriage should be separated (at least temporarily) and the couple should attend counseling together rather than force sex on each other.

Just in case there's anyone reading this who needs to know: Joint counseling is generally considered to be contraindicated in the case of domestic violence. And marital rape is domestic violence. You should NOT attend joint counseling with an abusive partner until you have both received adequate individual counseling, and until your counselor believes that it would be safe for you to do so.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yo Justinian, I know it's a total tangent but the OT law did NOT force rape victims to marry the rapists--rather it forced rapists to marry their victims if the victim and her family required it of him--which was a way of forcing the bastard to make as much restitution as possible for the lifelong harm he'd done her. The victim and her family were totally free to either force him into permanent marriage and lifelong financial support (rapists could never divorce their victims for any cause) or they could, if they chose, simply take the financial support as a lump sum and omit the marriage altogether. The whole thing was about DIS-empowering the rapist and attempting restorative justice insofar as that's even possible in a society like theirs.

I grant you it wouldn't fly today in a Western culture where the damage inflicted by rape is mainly psychological/physical. That's not restorable except by miracle, not today and not back then either. But rape victims in that culture had the additional burden to bear of being rendered unmarriageable--which meant that he had also deprived her of her livelihood. With no husband and no children, such a woman would be forced into beggary or prostitution. The Law of Moses aimed to stop that by putting the financial burden on the bastard who harmed her in the first place. And by giving her the option, if she chose it, of grabbing whatever social status, property, etc. he had as well by forcing him to give her the status of a wife. Alternately, she could use the financial damages award to find a decent husband.

None of this is very acceptable, of course. But that's because the crime itself is utterly unacceptable, and impossible to recompense. (One could argue that things were actually fairer in Moses' day--I'd love to see some friends of mine collect major financial damages from the assholes who assaulted them.)

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're avoiding the main question. Doesn't your theory of pre-determined consent eliminate marital rape as a category?

It would help if you actually read my posts before getting out the cookie-cutter for your responses. To recapitulate then, in brief, what was said above: no, it doesn't. A contract of consent tells you which party is wrong if consent is (unreasonably!) withheld. It does not tell you at all what consequences this can or must have. One may very well say that a Christian spouse in this situation must above all else consider Matt 5:38-42.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
So why can't society decide that the people who get married can also change? If marriage is no longer primarily about guaranteeing a sexual partner for the husband, or passing wealth on to children, then why does it still have to be all about Slot A and Tab B?

Marriage quite naturally gets mixed up with the dominant concerns of society, since it is foundational to its continuation. This does however not mean that it is - in principle - about these concerns. Marriage was, is, and will be (till the Second Coming) about the fruitful union in one flesh of man and woman. It doesn't particularly matter what society or the law makers think about that. Except that one may need to formally decouple marriage from whatever the state is allowing as "marriage" these days. Which is fine by me. Give Caesar what is Caesar's.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's pretty much how the old (and now invalid) UK line of authorities reasoned. If it was necessary to beat your wife in order to have sex with her, the beating was certainly a criminal assault, but the sex, to which you had a pre-determined consent, was not 'rape'.

This is however not quite my argument. Clearly one can inflict pain and injury to body and mind with genitals just as with fists, so I see no particular reason why one should not consider "genital assault" itself as criminal, even if a general consent had been given (and then unreasonably withdrawn). For such acts the word "rape" would be common.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Gay marriage is proposed on the basis of sound ethic principles - equality and consent.

Since "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, it of course enjoys no ethical support whatsoever - it doesn't exist. Some secular arrangements between gays could be argued for on these grounds, but they are simply not a marriage. Furthermore, that which is evil does not enjoy equality before the law with things that are not, even if in many ways analogous otherwise. Also, consent to evil is not providing support to the evil, but rather a cause against those consenting. Hence if gay sex is evil by its very nature, then clearly such secular arrangements (unreasonably called "gay marriages") cannot be argued for in analogy to marriage at all.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Marriage was, is, and will be (till the Second Coming) about the fruitful union in one flesh of man and woman.
Except when it's about the union of one man and multiple women, or (in rare cases, true) about the union of one woman and multiple men, or about the union of a man and a berdache, all of which are or have been legitimate forms of marriage in some time or place in the world.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
And I love how the word FRUITFUL got slipped in there. Very important that marriages are fruitful...

*scans the Marriage Acts of various countries to see if ANY of them require fruit*

EDIT: It's the inconsistency that pisses me off. Whatever someone like IngoB says, the laws of the land simply don't reflect these kinds of criteria.


I can see two logically consistent grounds for saying no to same-sex marriage. One is taht marriages are for childbearing. The other is that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong. Now, I'm sure there are people around, including right here on the Ship, who think one or both of those things are true. BUT THE LAWS DON'T SUPPORT THEM. The Marriage Act in this country hasn't said anything about childbearing in the last 50 to 60 years, and quite possibly not EVER. And homosexual sex has been decriminalised for a few decades now.

The thing that pisses me off is that no-one has the guts to flat out say that the laws should reflect their moral views on either the childbearing or the homosexuality point. But without that, there is absolutely no sensible, logical basis for excluding same-sex marriage from the law. I wish people would stop freaking trying to have it both ways.

[ 29. October 2011, 03:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Marriage was, is, and will be (till the Second Coming) about the fruitful union in one flesh of man and woman. ...

And yet fruitful unions happen all over the place without marriage. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Except when it's about the union of one man and multiple women, or (in rare cases, true) about the union of one woman and multiple men, or about the union of a man and a berdache, all of which are or have been legitimate forms of marriage in some time or place in the world.

Why do you say "except"? All these are indeed about the fruitful union in one flesh of one man and one woman. (Though perhaps you are trying something sneaky with "berdache".) Even in polygamy the sexual act remains between one man and one woman (biological "mechanics" enforces this), it remains ordered to procreation (polygamy produces children), and marriage remains a formal and binding decision between the partners (rather than a one night orgy).

Clearly, one can critique about polygamy that the form of this union is not representing ideally the principle. And that is exactly what Christianity traditionally does, claiming that Christ Himself outlawed this less ideal form for his followers.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I love how the word FRUITFUL got slipped in there. Very important that marriages are fruitful... *scans the Marriage Acts of various countries to see if ANY of them require fruit* EDIT: It's the inconsistency that pisses me off. Whatever someone like IngoB says, the laws of the land simply don't reflect these kinds of criteria.

I did not try to "sneak" anything in there, I simply gave the shortest complete definition. I'm quite happy to discuss what this means, and what not, at length. It is somewhat difficult, because sex must be "ordered to" procreation rather than "result in" the same. All this really means is that it is the form of the act that counts, not its outcome. However, the form itself is determined according to a procreative outcome. The simplest case is sex between an elderly couple. Their ongoing sexual life does not become illicit at some point merely because they become infertile due to age.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can see two logically consistent grounds for saying no to same-sex marriage. One is taht marriages are for childbearing. The other is that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong.

Both are correct, the former however only in the sense described above. Marriages are indeed for ("ordered to") childbearing, but that does not make childbearing as such a sine qua non. Rather it is necessary that one can perform the "correct mechanics" that belong to conceiving (but not necessarily result in) children. Consequently, RC canon law outlaws impotent, but not infertile, marriages.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The thing that pisses me off is that no-one has the guts to flat out say that the laws should reflect their moral views on either the childbearing or the homosexuality point. But without that, there is absolutely no sensible, logical basis for excluding same-sex marriage from the law. I wish people would stop freaking trying to have it both ways.

You are completely wrong there. It is not good governance to outlaw all behavior that is considered immoral / evil. Firstly, the state has finite resources and simply cannot control all aspects of the behavior of its citizens. A prudent choice hence has to be made which acts will be prosecuted and which not. Secondly, even if the state had the resources to control all citizens all the time, this still remains a bad idea. The problem of "who controls the controllers" arises, i.e., it will be people controlling people, and the misbehavior made possible by giving people control over other people is often much worse than the misbehavior that was supposed to be controlled thereby. In other words, it is wise for the state to grant a considerable amount of privacy, even if then things happen behind closed doors which can be called immoral / evil.

However, it is something completely different for the state to encourage rather than tolerate immoral / evil acts. In that case the state shares in the responsibility for these acts, and hence does evil. The recognition of "gay marriages", with a variety of practical support in typical scenarios, is hence not licit to the state, if "gay marriages" are immoral / evil.

In summary, it is an entirely consistent and indeed prudent position to say that on one hand the state should in general keep out of bedrooms but on the other hand insist that it should only support heterosexual marriages. That is not a question of guts, but of practical wisdom.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
And yet fruitful unions happen all over the place without marriage.

Clearly. But they shouldn't.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
So we are back to the line that my husband and I are not REALLY married because we have decided that we do not want to have children. [Disappointed]

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So we are back to the line that my husband and I are not REALLY married because we have decided that we do not want to have children. [Disappointed]

If you entered into marriage with the firm conviction that you never wish to have children, though you reasonably could, then according to the RC Canon Law at least (Can. 1101 §2) you are indeed not (sacramentally) married. I'm not sure what the situation is if there is a good reason why you do not desire any offspring, e.g., a severe gene defect that almost certainly would be passed on. I think Can. 1102 §1 probably makes it impossible to make openness to offspring entirely conditional on future developments (e.g., a cure for said gene defect), but IANACL.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're avoiding the main question. Doesn't your theory of pre-determined consent eliminate marital rape as a category?

It would help if you actually read my posts before getting out the cookie-cutter for your responses. To recapitulate then, in brief, what was said above: no, it doesn't. A contract of consent tells you which party is wrong if consent is (unreasonably!) withheld. It does not tell you at all what consequences this can or must have. One may very well say that a Christian spouse in this situation must above all else consider Matt 5:38-42.
I read 'em quite carefully. It would be nice if you'd return the consideration. For instance, I notice you didn't address my question about how consent that can later be revised can be considered "pre-determined". The idea that such consent could be withdrawn later is quite at odds with your horror at the "general trend in modern thought that a choice must be revisable to be valid / moral". That's not a position that consent shouldn't be withdrawn, that's a claim that consent can't be withdrawn ("revised") in what you consider a valid marriage. So, once again, if consent is "pre-determined" in marriage, how is can any sex within marriage be considered "rape", and if it is possible (not "allowed", just "possible") to withhold consent within marriage, how can consent be considered "pre-determined" or non-revisable?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, it is something completely different for the state to encourage rather than tolerate immoral / evil acts. In that case the state shares in the responsibility for these acts, and hence does evil. The recognition of "gay marriages", with a variety of practical support in typical scenarios, is hence not licit to the state, if "gay marriages" are immoral / evil.

In summary, it is an entirely consistent and indeed prudent position to say that on one hand the state should in general keep out of bedrooms but on the other hand insist that it should only support heterosexual marriages. That is not a question of guts, but of practical wisdom.

I'm not sure the grounds a non-theocratic state could use to determine that two women sharing a life together (for example) is "evil". Perhaps you could explain?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018

 - Posted      Profile for crynwrcymraeg   Email crynwrcymraeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
'I wish people would stop freaking trying to have it both ways.'

That would probably require a three-some ...

I imagine
[Two face]

--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.

Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018

 - Posted      Profile for crynwrcymraeg   Email crynwrcymraeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
'I wish people would stop freaking trying to have it both ways.'

That would probably require a three-some ...

I imagine
[Two face]

(oh dear i don t know what got into me ..)

--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.

Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Even in polygamy the sexual act remains between one man and one woman (biological "mechanics" enforces this), it remains ordered to procreation ...

quote:
...Rather it is necessary that one can perform the "correct mechanics" that belong to conceiving (but not necessarily result in) children. ...
Gotcha. Slot A and Tab B. Of all the things that marriage has been, is, and shall be, apparently sticking a penis into a vagina is its essential, defining characteristic. Which is something all mammals do, not just humans. If that's not devaluing marriage, I don't know what is.
quote:
... If you entered into marriage with the firm conviction that you never wish to have children, though you reasonably could, then according to the RC Canon Law at least (Can. 1101 §2) you are indeed not (sacramentally) married. ...
You've just given me a great idea for those that want to maintain a special distinction for the Slot A / Tab B form of marriage: from now on, those marriages will be called "sacramental marriage" and all others - civil, same-sex, common-law - marriages will be just "marriage". Whaddya say? OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
You've just given me a great idea for those that want to maintain a special distinction for the Slot A / Tab B form of marriage: from now on, those marriages will be called "sacramental marriage" and all others - civil, same-sex, common-law - marriages will be just "marriage". Whaddya say? OliviaG

But our marriage is a "Slot A / Tab B" marriage, just not one that is intended to be "fruitful".

Personally I find it slightly odd to be told that a marriage that was contracted in the context of a Eucharist is not sacramental. I thank God (once again) that I am not a Roman Catholic.

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
One thing I find very useful and educational about these threads is that when those who are opposed to gay marriage are pressed, they so often reveal their arguments to be rooted in institutional sexism.

Why must marriage be male/female?

Off we go with the pseudo-scientific use of Genesis about women being created for men and men being created first and women later (Here's a clue - biological research demonstrates that last bit is false.)

Then we get the other sort of sample argument:

Why when marriage is about people who are equals loving each other and cleaving to each other for life should this be denied to gay couples who can clearly do that?

'Ah but you misunderstand! Marriage is all about procreation!'

'Er what? Nobody does that to straight couples'

'Oh but we do, we totally do, you women had better want to birth them babies or your marriage is invalid!'

'Really? So if I'm not prepared to put myself through a life-threatening experience where I could end up dead or permanently damaged and with my genitals torn to shreds and to commit myself to child rearing regardless of anything else that might be a purpose in my life, my marriage aint valid? Would you like some detailed instructions on what you can do with that, Mr Not-Going-Through-Childbirth Ever?'

Then we get the other style of argument where the rhetoric of sexism is turned against gay people 'equal but different and WE the people who have discriminated against you for thousands of years get to define what equal is and what is good enough for you!'

Anyone who doubts that straight people and especially women should stand shoulder to shoulder with gay people can see that this is not a gay issue but a justice issue and one that especially affects women. The attack on gay marriage is really an attack on modern egalitarian marriage without rigid gender roles. Equally, without the development of the modern companionate egalitarian marriage, you wouldn't have the wish for that to be opened up to LGBT people.

Misunderstanding this history is where a lot of arguments miss the point. The template for modern gay marriage didn't exist in antiquity. Marriage then was hierarchical - the rare 'gay marriages' of antiquity were hierarchical marriage being extended to same-sex partners because you could still get a hierarchical relationship - older/younger, citizen/freed slave which allowed concepts of marriage based on the supremacy of the male free citizen as head of the household to still function (though not without causing a lot of anxiety about whether that was, in fact, being threatened).

Once you reject the hierarchical 'headship' marriage and its emphasis on procreation to free women from thousands of years of institutional abuse, it follows that there is no good reason for not opening this understanding of marriage to gay people.

If however, the way you anchor your faith is by some version of infallible tradition or infallible scripture, you are left having to justify the old sexist ideas of marriage as an institution or admit that on some subjects your preferred method of authority is holed below the waterline and implicated in the abuse of millions of people over thousands of years.

The result is a version of denialism where in order to keep the validation model for faith and belief intact, the terrible results of this for women and gay people have to be brushed under the carpet or denied or justified. We are collateral damage so the image of the infallible tradition or infallible scripture may be kept intact.

L

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:


Anyone who doubts that straight people and especially women should stand shoulder to shoulder with gay people can see that this is not a gay issue but a justice issue and one that especially affects women. The attack on gay marriage is really an attack on modern egalitarian marriage without rigid gender roles. Equally, without the development of the modern companionate egalitarian marriage, you wouldn't have the wish for that to be opened up to LGBT people.

Misunderstanding this history is where a lot of arguments miss the point. The template for modern gay marriage didn't exist in antiquity. Marriage then was hierarchical - the rare 'gay marriages' of antiquity were hierarchical marriage being extended to same-sex partners because you could still get a hierarchical relationship - older/younger, citizen/freed slave which allowed concepts of marriage based on the supremacy of the male free citizen as head of the household to still function (though not without causing a lot of anxiety about whether that was, in fact, being threatened).

Once you reject the hierarchical 'headship' marriage and its emphasis on procreation to free women from thousands of years of institutional abuse, it follows that there is no good reason for not opening this understanding of marriage to gay people.

If however, the way you anchor your faith is by some version of infallible tradition or infallible scripture, you are left having to justify the old sexist ideas of marriage as an institution or admit that on some subjects your preferred method of authority is holed below the waterline and implicated in the abuse of millions of people over thousands of years.

The result is a version of denialism where in order to keep the validation model for faith and belief intact, the terrible results of this for women and gay people have to be brushed under the carpet or denied or justified. We are collateral damage so the image of the infallible tradition or infallible scripture may be kept intact.

L

Amen

X10000000000000!

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
One thing I find very useful and educational about these threads is that when those who are opposed to gay marriage are pressed, they so often reveal their arguments to be rooted in institutional sexism.

Why must marriage be male/female?

Off we go with the pseudo-scientific use of Genesis about women being created for men and men being created first and women later (Here's a clue - biological research demonstrates that last bit is false.)

Then we get the other sort of sample argument:

Why when marriage is about people who are equals loving each other and cleaving to each other for life should this be denied to gay couples who can clearly do that?

'Ah but you misunderstand! Marriage is all about procreation!'

'Er what? Nobody does that to straight couples'

'Oh but we do, we totally do, you women had better want to birth them babies or your marriage is invalid!'

'Really? So if I'm not prepared to put myself through a life-threatening experience where I could end up dead or permanently damaged and with my genitals torn to shreds and to commit myself to child rearing regardless of anything else that might be a purpose in my life, my marriage aint valid? Would you like some detailed instructions on what you can do with that, Mr Not-Going-Through-Childbirth Ever?'

Then we get the other style of argument where the rhetoric of sexism is turned against gay people 'equal but different and WE the people who have discriminated against you for thousands of years get to define what equal is and what is good enough for you!'

Anyone who doubts that straight people and especially women should stand shoulder to shoulder with gay people can see that this is not a gay issue but a justice issue and one that especially affects women. The attack on gay marriage is really an attack on modern egalitarian marriage without rigid gender roles. Equally, without the development of the modern companionate egalitarian marriage, you wouldn't have the wish for that to be opened up to LGBT people.

Misunderstanding this history is where a lot of arguments miss the point. The template for modern gay marriage didn't exist in antiquity. Marriage then was hierarchical - the rare 'gay marriages' of antiquity were hierarchical marriage being extended to same-sex partners because you could still get a hierarchical relationship - older/younger, citizen/freed slave which allowed concepts of marriage based on the supremacy of the male free citizen as head of the household to still function (though not without causing a lot of anxiety about whether that was, in fact, being threatened).

Once you reject the hierarchical 'headship' marriage and its emphasis on procreation to free women from thousands of years of institutional abuse, it follows that there is no good reason for not opening this understanding of marriage to gay people.

If however, the way you anchor your faith is by some version of infallible tradition or infallible scripture, you are left having to justify the old sexist ideas of marriage as an institution or admit that on some subjects your preferred method of authority is holed below the waterline and implicated in the abuse of millions of people over thousands of years.

The result is a version of denialism where in order to keep the validation model for faith and belief intact, the terrible results of this for women and gay people have to be brushed under the carpet or denied or justified. We are collateral damage so the image of the infallible tradition or infallible scripture may be kept intact.

L

[Overused]

May I quote the last paragraph?

[ 30. October 2011, 18:31: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37

 - Posted      Profile for Paul.   Author's homepage   Email Paul.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I understand and share the desire the applaud Louise's excellent post. But surely that can be done without quoting the whole thing? Twice!

Pretty please?

Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's pretty much how the old (and now invalid) UK line of authorities reasoned. If it was necessary to beat your wife in order to have sex with her, the beating was certainly a criminal assault, but the sex, to which you had a pre-determined consent, was not 'rape'.

This is however not quite my argument. Clearly one can inflict pain and injury to body and mind with genitals just as with fists, so I see no particular reason why one should not consider "genital assault" itself as criminal, even if a general consent had been given (and then unreasonably withdrawn). For such acts the word "rape" would be common.
I know that isn’t your argument. I would never remotely suspect you of trying to justify marital rape or any other form of abuse.

However arguments from the same basic philosophical position have been so used, and it is (in the UK at least) the modern emphasis on consent as the dominant principle in sexual ethics that have killed off that way of thinking (God willing, for good).
quote:
Hence if gay sex is evil by its very nature, then clearly such secular arrangements (unreasonably called "gay marriages") cannot be argued for in analogy to marriage at all.
I agree with you there. The state ought not to promote what it knows to be evil. But you need to have a coherent moral philosophy that judges gay (so-called) marriage to be evil before that issue arises. Modern Western society doesn’t have one. It does have principles which are generally accepted and reflected in social attitudes and in laws which govern sexual ethics, but those are NOT adequate to condemn homosexuality or determine that gay marriage is intrinsically evil.

As such modern society can ban gay marriage only on an unprincipled basis. The ban would not be (is not) consistent with the values and convictions which inform the rest of our laws.

Orfeo’s post above is correct:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can see two logically consistent grounds for saying no to same-sex marriage. One is taht marriages are for childbearing. The other is that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong. Now, I'm sure there are people around, including right here on the Ship, who think one or both of those things are true. BUT THE LAWS DON'T SUPPORT THEM. The Marriage Act in this country hasn't said anything about childbearing in the last 50 to 60 years, and quite possibly not EVER. And homosexual sex has been decriminalised for a few decades now.

The difference between us seems to be that I think that consistency in principles is a legislative virtue, and you appear not to. I think that there ought ideally to be some justification from widely accepted values behind our laws, and in particular, behind laws which so drastically affect the lives of a large number of people. If we, as a society, are going to forbid a class of people from marrying, then it ought at least to be for some moral conviction which we as a society as a whole are prepared to defend. We ought not to do it for reasons which are defensible only on the basis of values held by a minority group whose sources of authority the majority reject.

You appear to be arguing that moral consistency in law is a fool’s errand anyway, and that the state should therefore not permit gays to marry, even though it might be that not one person in ten holds to any sort of ethical system that provides the ghost of a reason to distinguish them morally from straights. I will admit to being very surprised that you take this line, since you are normally a quite formidable exponent of the moral coherence and consistency of the Catholic Church’s teachings, and I had (I think not unreasonably) assumed that having a sound philosophical basis for ethics was a thing of some importance to you. You seem to be denying the need for (or even the applicability of) sound moral reasoning in a secular legal context, provided that an incoherent ethical system can be made to arrive at the right result. Have I misunderstood?

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, once again, if consent is "pre-determined" in marriage, how is can any sex within marriage be considered "rape", and if it is possible (not "allowed", just "possible") to withhold consent within marriage, how can consent be considered "pre-determined" or non-revisable?

Perhaps an analogy will help. You promise me, contractually, the free use of your car (though within reason). However, you still keep it in your garage to which only you have a key. One day I ask you for the car, but you refuse to open the garage with your key for no particular reason. Whereupon I beat you until you give me the garage key and then drive off with the car. Was that a robbery, or not? Well, that will depend on the definition of robbery. Is the situation somewhat different from the same situation but where no prior consent to the car use had been given? Certainly. However, this does not per se justify my actions.

So I would say three things: Firstly, whether something like "marital rape" can exist depends on how precisely one defines rape. Secondly, irrespective of the precise definition, the act so labeled is clearly a crime. Thirdly, that crime is lesser - all other things considered equal - than when no prior consent was obtained. That much seems clear, the rest is for lawyers and policy makers to work out.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure the grounds a non-theocratic state could use to determine that two women sharing a life together (for example) is "evil". Perhaps you could explain?

Two women sharing a life together are not a problem. Two women having sex with each other are however misusing their sexuality, which is immoral. And two women who consider each other lovers, i.e., partners in a relationship ordered to sex, are at least playing with fire.

As mentioned, I do not think that it is prudent for the state to prosecute such immorality. However, neither is it licit to support it. The proper way to deal with various injustices that could arise in the modern world is the Tasmanian one (as reported here). If the state wishes to have a "significant other" to talk to in cases of medical and/or social emergency, then the state should not require that this "significant other" must be in a "love relationship". Leave these matters to the individuals, continuing the hands-off policy concerning sex.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Gotcha. Slot A and Tab B. Of all the things that marriage has been, is, and shall be, apparently sticking a penis into a vagina is its essential, defining characteristic. Which is something all mammals do, not just humans. If that's not devaluing marriage, I don't know what is.

Firstly, this is simply unfair rhetoric. I'm discussing the essence of marriage, the "what it is", not absolutely everything that marriage has ever meant to somebody on earth. Likewise, if I were to defend the following definition of dance: "to move one's feet or body, or both, rhythmically in a pattern of steps, especially to the accompaniment of music" (dictionary.com), then it would be unfair rhetoric to insist on the importance of tango for the social life of Argentina or to point out that dancing is frequently a language of romance between a (prospective) couple. Not because these things are wrong or illusory, but because they are super-added to the essence of dance.

Secondly, while marriage is primarily ordered to the procreation and education of children, it is secondarily ordered to the unity of the spouses (through company and mutual assistance), and a lawful remedy to concupiscence. So there is more to the essence of marriage, we simply have not had a need to discuss this.

Thirdly, you seem to think that it is an argument against the traditional view that all mammals have sex of some kind. I have no idea why you would think so. That all animals eat and drink is no argument against the Lord appearing under the species of bread and wine.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
You've just given me a great idea for those that want to maintain a special distinction for the Slot A / Tab B form of marriage: from now on, those marriages will be called "sacramental marriage" and all others - civil, same-sex, common-law - marriages will be just "marriage". Whaddya say?

Let me consult Humpty Dumpty on that.

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Personally I find it slightly odd to be told that a marriage that was contracted in the context of a Eucharist is not sacramental.

Why? It is not the Eucharist that makes the marriage, but your exchange of vows.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Off we go with the pseudo-scientific use of Genesis about women being created for men and men being created first and women later (Here's a clue - biological research demonstrates that last bit is false.)

Biological research could potentially demonstrate something about that, if a biological claim was made in Genesis. While this is not the case, biology is rather unequivocal about the evolution of sex being ordered to procreation.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
'Really? So if I'm not prepared to put myself through a life-threatening experience where I could end up dead or permanently damaged and with my genitals torn to shreds and to commit myself to child rearing regardless of anything else that might be a purpose in my life, my marriage aint valid? Would you like some detailed instructions on what you can do with that, Mr Not-Going-Through-Childbirth Ever?'

Yes. No. Genesis 3:16-18.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The attack on gay marriage is really an attack on modern egalitarian marriage without rigid gender roles.

This at least is worth discussing. I would agree that the current "marriage system" is at odds with both Christianity and biology. I would disagree that the only alternative is extreme patriarchy.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
As such modern society can ban gay marriage only on an unprincipled basis. The ban would not be (is not) consistent with the values and convictions which inform the rest of our laws.

True. However, if we are so principled, then modern society cannot grant any marriages. For it comprehensively lacks a moral system that could support this. If the state nevertheless claims that it has business with marriage, then one can also ask it to not grant "gay marriage": by virtue of the very same inconsistency. The state is namely then implicitly borrowing traditional principle to justify its actions, and it is not fair to use only part of that. Again, I support the "Tasmanian solution". What modern society can do based on its own principles is to grant the establishment of "favored relationships" based strictly on the individuals' unfettered choice. I suggest to not call these marriages though, since - well - they generally aren't.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The difference between us seems to be that I think that consistency in principles is a legislative virtue, and you appear not to.

I do not share your optimism about the principles of modern society. I think they are skin-deep at best even taken in their own right, and quickly crumble under competent critique (which these days just as likely comes from the evil utilitarian fringe of Peter Singer et al., as from religious figures). Furthermore, I consider these principles to be flawed. So while it would be nice to have consistency in principles in the law, it is more important that the law is good than that it is consistent. So I cannot simply support any change of the law, just because it is consistently based on principle. For example, I'm sure that the Nazis produced a highly principled and comparatively consistent body of law. This however is reason to oppose their laws more, not less.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You seem to be denying the need for (or even the applicability of) sound moral reasoning in a secular legal context, provided that an incoherent ethical system can be made to arrive at the right result. Have I misunderstood?

The primary moral imperative is to do good and to avoid evil, not to reason. It is better to do good not properly knowing why, than to reason oneself brilliantly into evil. Of course, the value of a legal system that bases its laws on sound reasoning from good principles is tremendous. However, these are not the times for playing the ethical snob. Neither law nor society in the West have fully shaken of Christ's yoke, and who am I to hasten that process in the name of consistency? If society were to embrace Christian principles (again), I certainly would be all for applying them consistently to everything.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:


Originally posted by Louise:
Off we go with the pseudo-scientific use of Genesis about women being created for men and men being created first and women later (Here's a clue - biological research demonstrates that last bit is false.)

Biological research could potentially demonstrate something about that, if a biological claim was made in Genesis. While this is not the case, biology is rather unequivocal about the evolution of sex being ordered to procreation.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
'Really? So if I'm not prepared to put myself through a life-threatening experience where I could end up dead or permanently damaged and with my genitals torn to shreds and to commit myself to child rearing regardless of anything else that might be a purpose in my life, my marriage aint valid? Would you like some detailed instructions on what you can do with that, Mr Not-Going-Through-Childbirth Ever?'

Yes. No. Genesis 3:16-18.


I'm not making some specious argument from nature. I'm pointing out that what Genesis says about women which is often quoted with great seriousness in these matters is simply flat-out wrong. It's like treating with awe and reverence a document which describes how lower castes were created from the lower body parts of a God. It's not only flat-out wrong factually but morally wrong in the conclusions it tries to draw from its pseudo-facts.

Genesis doesn't just get stuff wrong, much of what it says about women is pernicious, and has been used wickedly for centuries. You yourself quote one of the vilest parts of it, with seemingly no awareness of what's wrong with that.

But admitting that the first book in the Bible, (which is quoted in the New Testament too, by figures such as Jesus and Paul) contains something so pernicious and false, strikes so hard at ideas of scriptural/traditional authority, that either women get sacrificed or Genesis gets re-interpreted to be a 'mostly harmless' poetic myth with talking animals and the occasional plucked-out-of-context pearl.

While the latter is far preferable to the former, it still serves to dull appreciation that it's a text which has been used to stunt the lives of generations upon generations of women and it's still damaging people today. Historically, it has underpinned to a great extent the ill treatment of both gay people and women. It's no accident that the beginnings of unravelling Genesis as a 'Just So' story with blood on its hands went a long way towards women and gay people achieving the freedoms they now have.

The comparison with racism may produce greater indignation, but the anti-gay marriage arguments are actually much more related to misogynist ones.

L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, once again, if consent is "pre-determined" in marriage, how is can any sex within marriage be considered "rape", and if it is possible (not "allowed", just "possible") to withhold consent within marriage, how can consent be considered "pre-determined" or non-revisable?

Perhaps an analogy will help. You promise me, contractually, the free use of your car (though within reason). However, you still keep it in your garage to which only you have a key. One day I ask you for the car, but you refuse to open the garage with your key for no particular reason. Whereupon I beat you until you give me the garage key and then drive off with the car. Was that a robbery, or not? Well, that will depend on the definition of robbery.
The usual definition of robbery is theft by force or threat of force. As such, the situation you describe is not robbery. There's the use of force, but taking something to which you're legally entitled is not considered theft, so one of the elements of the crime is missing. In other words, the situation you describe is assault, not robbery.

The biggest problem I have with this analogy (and your other attempts at analogizing/explaining) is that it explicitly buys in to the idea that "it's not really rape unless it involves a sizable amount of non-sexual assault as well".

A better analogy, one that gets at the key issue without adding in secondary considerations of non-sexual assault, would be to suppose you've been contractually granted the use of a car. The car's owner then refuses you the use, without revising the contract. You take the car anyway. Is that theft?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So I would say three things: Firstly, whether something like "marital rape" can exist depends on how precisely one defines rape.

The definition that got you so bent out of shape was "non-consensual sex". You seem to implicitly add a bunch of other conditions to qualify as "really rape".

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Secondly, irrespective of the precise definition, the act so labeled is clearly a crime. Thirdly, that crime is lesser - all other things considered equal - than when no prior consent was obtained. That much seems clear, the rest is for lawyers and policy makers to work out.

Ah yes, the old "it's not rape if she's a slut" defense, where it's assumed any prior granting of consent gives carte blanche to do whatever you like to your victim. A classic of the genre! Of course, this is more or less where we came in, when you asserted this point more or less exactly, though only within the confines of marriage.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure the grounds a non-theocratic state could use to determine that two women sharing a life together (for example) is "evil". Perhaps you could explain?

Two women sharing a life together are not a problem. Two women having sex with each other are however misusing their sexuality, which is immoral. And two women who consider each other lovers, i.e., partners in a relationship ordered to sex, are at least playing with fire.

As mentioned, I do not think that it is prudent for the state to prosecute such immorality. However, neither is it licit to support it. The proper way to deal with various injustices that could arise in the modern world is the Tasmanian one (as reported here). If the state wishes to have a "significant other" to talk to in cases of medical and/or social emergency, then the state should not require that this "significant other" must be in a "love relationship". Leave these matters to the individuals, continuing the hands-off policy concerning sex.

But if such arrangements are open to homosexuals, how does that not count as "supporting it"? And if the state can grant benefits to homosexual couples without it being considered "support", why can't it consider them married.

I also note you completely ignored my question about the grounds on which a non-theocratic state could determine homosexuality is "evil", so I'm going to assume you concede the point that no such secular grounds exist.

Of course, if we start with the assumption that the state should be in the business of suppressing, or at least not supporting, religiously-defined evil, that opens a whole very messy can of worms. For example, most Christian faiths hold that the worship of other Gods is evil. It's even on the Top Ten List, unlike homosexuality. So at the very least a Hindu Temple or Islamic Mosque shouldn't get the same tax-free status as a (true) Christian Church. Otherwise that's the state "supporting evil", as you put it. At any rate, I can't see a reason why a state enforcing theocratic norms on homosexuality, as you suggest, wouldn't start enforcing theocratic norms in other areas.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
As such modern society can ban gay marriage only on an unprincipled basis. The ban would not be (is not) consistent with the values and convictions which inform the rest of our laws.

True. However, if we are so principled, then modern society cannot grant any marriages. For it comprehensively lacks a moral system that could support this. If the state nevertheless claims that it has business with marriage, then one can also ask it to not grant "gay marriage": by virtue of the very same inconsistency. The state is namely then implicitly borrowing traditional principle to justify its actions, and it is not fair to use only part of that. Again, I support the "Tasmanian solution". What modern society can do based on its own principles is to grant the establishment of "favored relationships" based strictly on the individuals' unfettered choice. I suggest to not call these marriages though, since - well - they generally aren't.


Does not follow. Primarily because your argument entirely relies on society in general agreeing with you what constitutes a marriage. If society in general thinks of a marriage in terms other than yours, then society in general is perfectly entitled to approve of and grant marriages.

It's been a long, long time since secular law and Catholic doctrine on marriages coincided. Remarriage of divorcees being the clear example. The Catholic Church is free to decide on its own rules for what marriages it will and will not recognise, but I don't think it can behave as if it's in a position to dictate that the secular law must apply the same rules. Especially not when other churches don't even apply the same rules (divorcees again).

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Back from RL and feeling sorry for poor wickle Ingo, all on his own.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If society in general thinks of a marriage in terms other than yours, then society in general is perfectly entitled to approve of and grant marriages.

What is this society of which you speak?

Part of my frustration is that, ISTM, there is a certain circularity in the argument. Advocates for gay marriage are claiming that we need to catch up with popular opinion in society and yet I'm left wondering why it is such a contentious issue if it already has overwhelming support.

Supporters and opponents of gay marriage hold their positions for a mixture of reasons - some rational, some not; some consistent, some not. I'm not defending that, it is simply is.

I appreciate that people like me (who just don't get it yet) must really try the patience of the supporters but isn't that just how the democratic process works?

Speaking as someone who is currently opposed to gay marriage it does feel sometimes as if the political process is played both ways: it is good when surveys are quoted claiming support for gay marriage but it is bad when other political groups lobby the other way.

Personally I don't take much notice of surveys on any issue. I'd be much more comfortable saying that society is in favour of gay marriage once legislation has been passed than the other way round.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I'm pointing out that what Genesis says about women which is often quoted with great seriousness in these matters is simply flat-out wrong.

You may believe so, but you certainly haven't shown so. Strictly speaking you have not even made your case against a literalistic interpretation yet. You just went "the biology is wrong, therefore ... nudge, nudge, wink, wink," hoping that modern prejudice will fill in the gaping holes of your non-argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's like treating with awe and reverence a document which describes how lower castes were created from the lower body parts of a God. It's not only flat-out wrong factually but morally wrong in the conclusions it tries to draw from its pseudo-facts.

Interesting. Actual medieval argument along these lines by St. Thomas Aquinas: "I answer that, It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither "use authority over man," and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man's contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet. Secondly, for the sacramental signification; for from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross the Sacraments flowed - namely, blood and water - on which the Church was established." Not that one has to put stock in all that, but if one goes on about the significance of body parts, then it is important to note that Eve was made from Adam's side.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You yourself quote one of the vilest parts of it, with seemingly no awareness of what's wrong with that.

If you weren't so terribly caught up in your belligerent ideology, you might be able to see the significance of things being listed as SNAFU there. Were the epidural and the plow evil inventions? No.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The comparison with racism may produce greater indignation, but the anti-gay marriage arguments are actually much more related to misogynist ones.

While I reject both charges, this correctly locates the debate.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A better analogy, one that gets at the key issue without adding in secondary considerations of non-sexual assault, would be to suppose you've been contractually granted the use of a car. The car's owner then refuses you the use, without revising the contract. You take the car anyway. Is that theft?

This is not a better analogy. The severity and kind of violence may well vary, but the necessity to prove that a rape has actually take place will practically speaking not allow prosecution for cases which you imagine here (i.e., where the sum total of resistance was a statement that sex was unwanted) in most cases. Nevertheless, to the extent that one can try such cases as "marital rape" in the modern system, one could consider them also as "sexual assault" in the old. Overt physical damage is in principle not necessary for either (though as mentioned in practice generally needed to make a case).

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The definition that got you so bent out of shape was "non-consensual sex". You seem to implicitly add a bunch of other conditions to qualify as "really rape".

The problem with that definition is that here consent can be at the same time given (through the contract) and withdrawn (through the present behaviour). One can solve this issue by claiming that such a contract is illicit because consent can never be given but in the present. We can discuss that, of course, but it is simply not fair to judge a system that does not make this assumption in terms deriving from a system that does.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ah yes, the old "it's not rape if she's a slut" defense, where it's assumed any prior granting of consent gives carte blanche to do whatever you like to your victim. A classic of the genre!

Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I have said nothing of this sort, indeed, I have consistently argued against this from the beginning.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But if such arrangements are open to homosexuals, how does that not count as "supporting it"? And if the state can grant benefits to homosexual couples without it being considered "support", why can't it consider them married.

If a "favoured relationship" can be claimed without any reference to sex, then the sexual orientation of the claimants simply plays no role. The state is then supporting the making of arrangements to deal with insurances and so forth, it is not making a statement about what kind of sexuality is good. Furthermore, the state cannot consider gays to be married to each other for the same reason that it cannot consider a tomato to be a kind of fish.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I also note you completely ignored my question about the grounds on which a non-theocratic state could determine homosexuality is "evil", so I'm going to assume you concede the point that no such secular grounds exist.

Well, no, I do not concede that point and I did actually not completely ignore that question. The key statement was "Two women having sex with each other are however misusing their sexuality, which is immoral." (italics added) Homosexuality is wrong by natural moral law as misuse of the sexual faculty. The problem is however that while natural moral law could and should be the basis of secular law, it de facto isn't. Furthermore, natural moral law is actually not trivial at all. It does not mean that morality is based on the first thing that comes to people's minds when thinking about some moral case, etc.

Since I consider it prudent for the state to stay out of bedrooms, and since I consider the state to be sadly ignorant of natural moral law at the present time, I would indeed prefer to sidestep the difficult discussion of the applicability of natural moral law to bedrooms by invoking prudence.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, I can't see a reason why a state enforcing theocratic norms on homosexuality, as you suggest, wouldn't start enforcing theocratic norms in other areas.

Where I have suggested what enforcing? I think we have simply seen the state devolve from the key maintainer of the common good of a specific national community to a kind of formal place holder for negotiations between various interest groups and communities loosely associated by geographic accident.

Maybe all this is for the better. One could see this as re-establishing subsidiarity in the governance of morals. Perhaps the government should step back on these matters as much as possible on principle, and leave it up to "lower parts of the governance hierarchy" to sort out the practicalities in a more local manner.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If society in general thinks of a marriage in terms other than yours, then society in general is perfectly entitled to approve of and grant marriages.

Sure, and I am then entitled to believe that society is not actually dealing with marriages there, but with something else, misapplying the word "marriage" which used to have - and to me still has - a clear meaning.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
IngoB,

I think we hit a fundamental philosophical difference. You seem to believe that not having a consistent morality is crippling. Unfortunately for you the world is big and complex. It is bigger than you or I and far more complex. Anyone who can claim to understand the whole world at a moral level is claiming they are understanding something orders of magnitude more complex than themselves. Which is, of course, impossible. What you understand if you have such a consistent basis for morality is a map, pure and simple. And your fundamental mistake of treating the map you understand as the territory no one can understand is a mirror of the nihilist who throws the moral baby out with the bathwater.

And not only are you confusing the map with the territory, you are looking at parts of the map that say "Here be dragons" and warning us of the dragons your map shows. This, of course, cuts no ice at all with the inhabitants of the regions marked with dragons on your map.

Ultimately the world is more complex than we can understand and although a good map is useful for things you do not have experience of. It also doesn't help that maps need updating when the circumstances change. And this only makes your map more ludicrous - claiming that no one lives in the area marked "here be dragons" when I've walked round the city there.

Apparently the vows not the sacrament are the important part of marriage. This alone should tell you that a gay marriage is the same as a sacramental marriage. Are you denying the ability for one gay person to swear vows to another and mean them? If the vows are the important part then a gay marriage is completely licit. It's only if the sacrament is the important part that there's a difference.

But the Catholics had decent mapmakers once. People who could push the boundaries. Let's see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the nature of sin:
quote:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the
Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Let's look at the definition of mortal sin for a second as defined by your own Catechism. "Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him."

Does loving someone of your own gender destroy charity in the heart of man? I can think of nothing that inspires charity more than allowing genuine love to flourish.

Does prohibiting people from loving their fellow people simply because of their gender destroy charity in the heart of man? Yes, a thousand times yes. Telling people "Thou shalt not love that person and you are evil for trying to do so" will twist and destroy their ability to love and to charity.

Does the bigotry preached by the Roman Catholic Church therefore constitute a mortal sin? In principle. It attacks the vital principle in us - that is charity.

But there's more to the definition of a mortal sin. It must be about a grave matter as defined - i.e. "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."

There are only two commandments that apply here. Adultery is the obvious one and largely irrelevant to the issues at hand. It just means cheating after the marriage and has nothing to say about whether a gay marriage is possible. The important one is the commandment on false witness.

When gay couples swear wedding vows they are not committing false witness. They mean every word they say - I take it you at least have the charity in you to accept that.

However when you claim that gay marriage is an oxymoron then you are point blank committing false witness. Marriage is a civil institution as well as a religious one. And even if you discount civil marriages the Quakers for one have been (religiously) marrying gay people for a long time now. Do you deny that any Quaker marriages are valid? You might claim that a Roman Catholic Gay Marriage is an oxymoron (based on the claim in the Catechism that " tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."" (see: here be dragons on old maps). But do you deny that other denominations can marry people?

However I suspect that this is going to prove fruitless. Because although the sections on sin don't claim anything about being gay, there needed to be a separate passage inserted about it.
quote:
More from the Catechism:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Translating sentence by sentence: Being gay means being attracted to your own sex. Even we know different manifestations are different but we'll treat everything as the same so we don't have to worry about being wrong. We don't understand it. People have thought it to be icky and written that down, so we'll do the same and claim that the manifestations they were talking about are the same as all others. Because we say so. And sex should be all about the babies. Or about gender roles, the idea of equality not being something we get. So we're just going to say no.


As for modern morality only being skin deep, possibly. The skin is the largest organ of the human body. It's fascinating, complex, self-reparing, and absolutely critical to human survival. It's a large part of how we perceive the world, containing the most intimate of all senses, and a large part of how we interact with our fellow humans. It warns us of danger, lets us know when things feel unpleasant, and holds the sense through which we (or at least I) feel the greatest pleasure (and I mean touch, not sex). I am very happy to say that modern morality is like the skin, whereas the morality you espouse is like the heart - a mechanical pump, protected from interaction, awful at self repair, and that can be transplanted. But is placed on a pedestal because it is hard to get at and is a single point of failure - and one that must be protected at almost all costs rather than one that helps protect me. The more I think about it, the better I find the skin/heart analogy to be.

And on preview, I am absolutely appalled to see that you seem to be claiming that an inability to prosecute rape cases means that they aren't rapes when assault hasn't taken place.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And on preview, I am absolutely appalled to see that you seem to be claiming that an inability to prosecute rape cases means that they aren't rapes when assault hasn't taken place.

IngoB's not claiming that.

He's claiming that whether or not you call sex with a not-presently-consenting spouse "rape" or not, it should certainly be criminal, but that without evidence of force, it might be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Which is right - any allegation of sexual assault, where the other party asserts consent, is hard to establish if there is no additional evidence of force. The test is 'beyond reasonable doubt' after all. That doesn't mean that because there's no compelling proof it didn't happen.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And on preview, I am absolutely appalled to see that you seem to be claiming that an inability to prosecute rape cases means that they aren't rapes when assault hasn't taken place.

IngoB's not claiming that.

He's claiming that whether or not you call sex with a not-presently-consenting spouse "rape" or not, it should certainly be criminal, but that without evidence of force, it might be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Which is right - any allegation of sexual assault, where the other party asserts consent, is hard to establish if there is no additional evidence of force. The test is 'beyond reasonable doubt' after all. That doesn't mean that because there's no compelling proof it didn't happen.

Nonsense. IngoB is arguing about definitions, not legal practicalities. (Except in his last post, where he changes ground suddenly.) Claiming that rape isn't rape without a conviction is like claiming Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman weren't really murdered because no one has been convicted of the act.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think we hit a fundamental philosophical difference. You seem to believe that not having a consistent morality is crippling.

Not really, no. However, where we can know what is right and what is wrong, there obfuscation is indeed crippling.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Anyone who can claim to understand the whole world at a moral level is claiming they are understanding something orders of magnitude more complex than themselves. Which is, of course, impossible.

So much for the natural sciences then. Since the world is undeniably more complex than the individual researcher, or indeed all researchers put together, we should just throw our hands in the air and go home.

Yet water flows downhill and sex is ordered to procreation. We can understand a lot, definitely enough to make a big difference.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And your fundamental mistake of treating the map you understand as the territory no one can understand is a mirror of the nihilist who throws the moral baby out with the bathwater.

Lovely cartoon, like most of xkcd's offerings. It is somewhat difficult to guess why you consider it relevant though. Following my best guess, I'll just point out that this is not about one guy complaining that we are too heavy to fly and the other guy jumping off a cliff in response. In which case the outcome would be, splat.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Apparently the vows not the sacrament are the important part of marriage. This alone should tell you that a gay marriage is the same as a sacramental marriage. Are you denying the ability for one gay person to swear vows to another and mean them? If the vows are the important part then a gay marriage is completely licit. It's only if the sacrament is the important part that there's a difference.

You appear mightily confused. Firstly, clearly gays can vow all sorts of things to each other. One thing they cannot vow to each other is however "a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." (Can. 1096 §1) That is what marriage is, but neither are they man and woman, nor is their sexual cooperation ordered to procreation. I can vow to you to bring you some stardust from Alpha Centauri, and you can vow to me to remember a trillion digits of pi, but such vows are worthless because they cannot correspond to reality.

Secondly, the vows - or more precisely any expressed consent of the parties to contract marriage - are the sacrament. If you want to be precise, the matter of the sacrament is the mutual offering of rights, and its form is their mutual acceptance. There is nothing "special" going on in a Christian marriage contract that would distinguish sacramental marriage from other marriages. Rather if the contracting parties are baptized, then their marriage contract will be sacramental if valid (Can. 1055 §2). It is being Christian that is the key here.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Does loving someone of your own gender destroy charity in the heart of man? I can think of nothing that inspires charity more than allowing genuine love to flourish.

Firstly, there's nothing wrong with non-romantic love for someone of the same gender. Secondly, as Matt 22:36-40 points out, the primary commandment is to love God, the secondary one to love man. It is highly unfortunate if one is pitted against the other, but it unequivocal which one should "win" in such cases.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Does prohibiting people from loving their fellow people simply because of their gender destroy charity in the heart of man? Yes, a thousand times yes. Telling people "Thou shalt not love that person and you are evil for trying to do so" will twist and destroy their ability to love and to charity.

To the contrary, only the truth shall set them free of their slavery to sin (John 8:31-36). That said, one should not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick (Matt 12:18-20). Thus suaviter in modo, fortiter in re (gentle in manner, resolute in the matter) does it as far as pastoral care is concerned. Frank discussion is one thing, taking spiritual care of people quite another.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But there's more to the definition of a mortal sin. It must be about a grave matter as defined - i.e. "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."

Not "i.e.", but "e.g.". Grave matter cannot be reduced to the Ten Commandments.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When gay couples swear wedding vows they are not committing false witness. They mean every word they say - I take it you at least have the charity in you to accept that.

A gay couple swearing wedding vows and meaning every word they say would be clinically insane. I'm not sure whether that counts as false witness technically speaking, probably not on account of absent culpability. Of course, what you actually mean is that gays can swear vows to each other that in some non-essential aspects resemble marriage. That is undoubtedly true. They might even copy at least some of the words used in the traditional rite. That's possible because those rites come from times when sex was not openly discussed, the idea of a "gay marriage" was unheard of, and being childless usually was considered a curse. Basically, nobody needed a doctrinal reminder, and it would have been deemed totally inappropriate to go into "mechanical" details.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However when you claim that gay marriage is an oxymoron then you are point blank committing false witness.

False witness to whom and/or what?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But do you deny that other denominations can marry people?

No denomination can marry people as such. Only a couple can marry itself, with potentially the Church as witness before God. Marriage is a contract between husband and wife, the Church can merely play the properly accredited notary. Such a contract between baptized persons will furthermore be sacramental.

There is no possibility of such a contract between a gay couple. Not because the Church or some other institution says so. Simply because the terms and conditions of the marriage contract do not and cannot apply. A gay couple does not consist of man and woman, and they cannot have "procreation-ordered" sex. End of story. It is quite literally irrelevant what the state, the Quakers or anybody else has to say about that.

Of course, one can do a Humpty-Dumpty and simply call "marriage" some other contract that a gay couple in fact can make validly. That's not so much a question of morals as such, but of the abuse of language to fight a proxy war over a moral and social issue.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
IngoB's not claiming that. He's claiming that whether or not you call sex with a not-presently-consenting spouse "rape" or not, it should certainly be criminal, but that without evidence of force, it might be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Correct, thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Nonsense. IngoB is arguing about definitions, not legal practicalities.

Not nonsense, Eliab summarized it well. What did you think "will practically speaking not allow prosecution" and "to the extent that one can try such cases as "marital rape" in the modern system" was intended to mean?

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
clearly gays can vow all sorts of things to each other. One thing they cannot vow to each other is however "a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104

Only if you think that the only authority on marriage is The Vatican.

There are many other authorities.

Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?

[ 31. October 2011, 20:45: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]A gay couple swearing wedding vows and meaning every word they say would be clinically insane. can try such cases as "marital rape" in the modern system"[/i] was intended to mean?

I read somewhere that 'clinical insanity' is a medical term. Someone can be totally insane but still know the difference between right and wrong.

Then I read somewhere else that 'It doesn't really mean anything and is just a common term used by laypeople when commenting on human behaviour.'

The Urban Dictionary says
quote:
someone who's general persona is on the mad side of normal. usually gets involved in acts of lunacy when intoxicated. these people usually deny the extent of their clinical insanity and try to find people who are more clinical than them, or at least claim that others are more mad.
So are you saying that all LGBTs who love each other are 'clinically insane', 'the mad side of normal' and that the RCC is normal and not mad, not obsessed with sex and that everyone who disagrees with it is mad?

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?

This cuts both ways Leo.

Who do you think you are to tell any RC that they cannot offer up the RCC definition of marriage to society?

This was what I had in mind with my last post. In a democracy surely IngoB has every right to argue for the RCC definition of marriage to be the one that society should stick to?

As you well know, I am very grateful that I don't live in a country where RC is the state religion. However, that doesn't mean that I think RCs shouldn't be allowed to engage in the political process... if you will forgive the double negative.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Not really, no. However, where we can know what is right and what is wrong, there obfuscation is indeed crippling.

Indeed.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Anyone who can claim to understand the whole world at a moral level is claiming they are understanding something orders of magnitude more complex than themselves. Which is, of course, impossible.

So much for the natural sciences then. Since the world is undeniably more complex than the individual researcher, or indeed all researchers put together, we should just throw our hands in the air and go home.
Missing both my point and the point of the XKCD comic. Just because we can't know everything and because we don't have a single definitive map doesn't mean we should go home. We can make our own maps. We can get closer than we were. We can walk in beauty when we put down the maps and stop trying to fit the world to the bible and the Catechism. Or we can go home and say the world is complex and that only the map matters.

quote:
Yet water flows downhill and sex is ordered to procreation. We can understand a lot, definitely enough to make a big difference.
Sex is ordered to pleasure and to affirmation and to pain and to power and to many other things. By claiming that "sex is ordered to procreation" you are diminishing it into a caricature. You might as well say a knife is ordered to killing.

quote:
Following my best guess, I'll just point out that this is not about one guy complaining that we are too heavy to fly and the other guy jumping off a cliff in response. In which case the outcome would be, splat.
That "cliff" is all of six inches high. There are many many people who have jumped over it. Just because you won't (and indeed are ordered not to under any circumstance) doesn't make that cliff any more likely to kill.

quote:
You appear mightily confused. Firstly, clearly gays can vow all sorts of things to each other. One thing they cannot vow to each other is however "a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." (Can. 1096 §1) That is what marriage is,
No. That is what one large and influential organisation has inconsistently and incoherently tried to redefine marriage into. Were it to actually believe the above, post-menopausal couples would not be married because they can no more be ordered to procreation than gay couples.

The claims you are spouting about Humpty Dumpty are nothing more than a claim that you got there first, having thrown out other groups who were there before you were.

quote:
Secondly, the vows - or more precisely any expressed consent of the parties to contract marriage - are the sacrament.
Now what happens if there is no sacrament and no intent at the marriage being a sacrament. It is an exchange of vows between a loving man and woman under the law and in front of the church - and is therefore a marriage. It just is not a sacramental one?

quote:
If you want to be precise, the matter of the sacrament is the mutual offering of rights, and its form is their mutual acceptance. There is nothing "special" going on in a Christian marriage contract that would distinguish sacramental marriage from other marriages. Rather if the contracting parties are baptized, then their marriage contract will be sacramental if valid (Can. 1055 §2). It is being Christian that is the key here.
Fine. We can call your marriages Christian Sacramental Marriages. You yourself admit that not all marriages are Christian Sacramental Marriages. So why are you arguing about marriages that are not Christian Sacramental Marriages. It's not as if they affect you. Or anyone you know who does have a Christian Sacramental Marriage.

Because if being Christian is the key to being married, and sacramental is important, you've just declared at least a dozen of my friends to be bastards. You've declared Hindu marriages invalid. You've declared Muslim marriages to be invalid. You've declared Quaker marriages to be invalid. You've declared Civil marriages to be invalid.

All those are valid forms of marriage that exist irrespective of what you claim. Rome does not control marriages. And no one is saying that anyone who wants to should be able to be married in a Roman Catholic Church. But you mysteriously think that the Roman Catholic Church should have the right to dictate marriage to everyone else.

quote:
]Firstly, there's nothing wrong with non-romantic love for someone of the same gender. Secondly, as Matt 22:36-40 points out, the primary commandment is to love God, the secondary one to love man. It is highly unfortunate if one is pitted against the other, but it unequivocal which one should "win" in such cases.
Apparently your God dislikes humans loving each other. I am very glad that I grew up with the Quakers rather than with such a jealous God.

quote:
Not "i.e.", but "e.g.". Grave matter cannot be reduced to the Ten Commandments.
In which case there's a translation error. "Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man:" If it is specified by the ten commandments then yes it can. But this is a tangent.


quote:
There is no possibility of such a contract between a gay couple. Not because the Church or some other institution says so. Simply because the terms and conditions of the marriage contract do not and cannot apply. A gay couple does not consist of man and woman, and they cannot have "procreation-ordered" sex. End of story. It is quite literally irrelevant what the state, the Quakers or anybody else has to say about that.
If the Roman Catholic Church wishes to make up its own definition of a Christian Sacramental Marriage then it is free to do so. It is quite literally irrelevant what anyone else has to say about that. However your narrow definition is not the only definition of marriage there is or has been. And the rest of us are going to first point out the political power grab from you then hopefully ignore you until you become irrelevant.

quote:
Of course, one can do a Humpty-Dumpty and simply call "marriage" some other contract that a gay couple in fact can make validly.
Marriage is a contract in the eyes of the law that existed long before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. Apparently your attempts to change it are fine and ours are Humpty-Dumpty. Right. No wonder we get nowhere in discussion. Only the Roman Catholic Church has the right to set any terms.

quote:
That's not so much a question of morals as such, but of the abuse of language to fight a proxy war over a moral and social issue.


In short you don't like it when other people use your historical tactics.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
IngoB's not claiming that. He's claiming that whether or not you call sex with a not-presently-consenting spouse "rape" or not, it should certainly be criminal, but that without evidence of force, it might be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Correct, thank you.
There's an is/ought issue in your posts. Is it true that the woman in a marriage contract has the right to say no to sex at any time? In which case we aren't changing much except a slight shift in emphasis. Or isn't it? And it's simply something the husband ought to pay attention to - in which case marital rape isn't against what you think the law should be.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools