|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The next person I hear...
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think LeRoc is right there. It often strikes me that IngoB is hastily rushing round applying filler to gaps in the walls of his arguments or shoring up a crumbling buttress, and so on. Well, we all do that probably, but he pretends that it all neatly interlocks.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
So I think it's bullshit to imply that it's not the content of IngoB's beliefs that is the problem - that it's not that he's a believing Catholic - but the manner in which he argues for them.
You can think it's bullshit if you like. It's not.
I never said that folks had nothing against IngoB's way of arguing too, just that the teachings he's defending - however he's defending them - have already been deemed in themselves (by their content) inherently unacceptable to most people here. Fair enough. But have the honesty to admit that just as, in the past, Croesus and Justinian - oh, and Hilary Mantel - have.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Catholic theology is unacceptable to me. Is that what you wanted me to admit? Duh, it's the reason why I'm not a Catholic.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
The thing is, IngoB isn't really defending his Catholic faith on the Ship. I wouldn't have a problem at all if he would do that. I don't have a problem if people defend that their theology is a valid way of looking at the world, even if I disagree with their theology.
What IngoB pretends is more than that though. For over 10 years he's pretended he can show that if we just observe nature and apply logic to that, we'll end up with Catholic theology. I disagree with his conclusion of course, but within the debate my objections are much more against the dishonest ways in which he argues. The fact that he's personally a complete twat during these debates doesn't help much either.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I use the word 'slippery', not really inviting sexual innuendos, still every cloud has a silver lining, but a better word is dishonest. The attempt to drag natural law from theology into secular reasoning strikes me as very queasy indeed, involving the smuggling in of teleology. Hence terms like 'natural end' and 'ordered to', which are tendentious.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Catholic theology is unacceptable to me. Is that what you wanted me to admit? Duh, it's the reason why I'm not a Catholic.
I meant something rather stronger than that. The idea that Catholic teaching on certain subjects is entirely beyond the pale, something that "decent" people would have nothing to do with. That it should be fought tooth and nail - or at least pilloried - wherever it is encountered.
I suspect that a lot more people come to a discussion like this with that notion in their minds than are prepared to admit it. Easier to pillory the individual expressing the Catholic stance than admit that no expression of it would be anything other than repugnant to them. The latter would smack to them too much of anti-Catholicism of the bigotted type, from which in principle they would want to distance themselves.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Chesterbelloc: The idea that Catholic teaching on certain subjects is entirely beyond the pale, something that "decent" people would have nothing to do with. That it should be fought tooth and nail - or at least pilloried - wherever it is encountered.
Well yes. I do think that Catholic teaching on things like homosexuality and the role of women is immoral, and that it should be resisted. Me debating with IngoB isn't going to contribute much to that though, so that isn't the reason why I do it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Really? So if IngoB conducted himself in precisely the same way but in favour of your side on thse issues, you would criticise him just as energetically rather than applaud his skewering of the opposition? Do you really think you would do that?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It is hardly a radical philosophical idea that there is a difference between a revealed and a logical truth about ethics.
But according to IngoB, there is no difference. All truth is logical, and therefore his truth is true - not because it is revealed but because it is logical. Hence he says it is as logical as his science.
The problem is that he does not argue his beliefs as being revealed to the Roman Catholic Church, he argues that they are logical and apply to everyone, but then fails to supply any scrap of evidence to suggest why this is the case. In this thread alone he has made statements about the wide applicability of marriage relationships throughout the ages and throughout cultures, but has failed to even attempt to justify them.
He is not, actually, arguing a logical position, he is arguing a position that a) he accepts and b) has internal consistency. That's not the same thing.
Now, I have no problem with revealed ethical positions. I am pleased to live in a country where all kinds of different beliefs are held by people who think that various deities have revealed themselves to them at different times.
I am happy that Roman Catholics can live here, can exercise their rituals and beliefs freely, and so on.
I happen to believe that of the collection of beliefs that encompass those who say "God says x", the one expressed by IngoB is one of the worst I have ever heard. But that's fine, who cares what I think anyway.
But what does matter is when someone with a "God says" theology tries to say that their belief is some kind of trump card which should be respected over and above the wishes of others in society. That isn't the society I want to live in.
You can declare anyone you like to be ordained under whichever rules you like. But you don't get to tell other religions who they can ordain, you don't get to tell the state who they should recognise under any religious tax advantages, you don't get to speak with final authority on these boards.
Your beliefs are just another claim to received ethics like every other buggers.
The dishonesty here is when IngoB claims he can prove something with logic when very clearly he is not using anything like logic at all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Chesterbelloc: Really? So if IngoB conducted himself in precisely the same way but in favour of your side on thse issues, you would criticise him just as energetically rather than applaud his skewering of the opposition? Do you really think you would do that?
Yes.
Believe me, there are some weirdos sometimes on my side too. I don't applaud them.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The idea that Catholic teaching on certain subjects is entirely beyond the pale, something that "decent" people would have nothing to do with. That it should be fought tooth and nail - or at least pilloried - wherever it is encountered.
This would be worth a thread of its own.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Really? So if IngoB conducted himself in precisely the same way but in favour of your side on thse issues, you would criticise him just as energetically rather than applaud his skewering of the opposition? Do you really think you would do that?
I've chastised people on these boards who were"on my side" for that very behaviour. Less often than IngoB, yes. Partly because he can take it, partly because he is the reigning champ and partly because it is more noticible when in opposition than in sympathy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
So I think it's bullshit to imply that it's not the content of IngoB's beliefs that is the problem - that it's not that he's a believing Catholic - but the manner in which he argues for them.
You can think it's bullshit if you like. It's not.
I never said that folks had nothing against IngoB's way of arguing too, just that the teachings he's defending - however he's defending them - have already been deemed in themselves (by their content) inherently unacceptable to most people here. Fair enough. But have the honesty to admit that just as, in the past, Croesus and Justinian - oh, and Hilary Mantel - have.
I don't agree with Catholic theology on a variety of things to do with sex.
But this thread started off with me explicitly not taking issue with whatever Catholics do or don't do in the privacy of their own homes and churches. If you want to say that Catholics must do X, Y and Z it doesn't affect me because I'm not Catholic.
The whole point was that people are trying to run the procreation argument in relation to secular law when secular law already is inconsistent with any such argument. That's the stupidity. If Catholics really think that the law ought to reflect Catholic theology, then why the blazes haven't Catholics been protesting against the current law, as it applies to heterosexual marriages?
My infertile male relative isn't Catholic, so I imagine he never had any crisis of conscience while having sex with his wife, but the point of this thread was about the fact that the law was perfectly happy with his marriage and there was never any sign of good Christians protesting that a man with no prospect of children oughtn't be allowed to make promises to a woman about the kind of relationship he'd have with her.
[ 12. July 2015, 00:36: 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
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is hardly a radical philosophical idea that there is a difference between a revealed and a logical truth about ethics.
But according to IngoB, there is no difference. All truth is logical, and therefore his truth is true - not because it is revealed but because it is logical. Hence he says it is as logical as his science.
The problem is that he does not argue his beliefs as being revealed to the Roman Catholic Church, he argues that they are logical and apply to everyone, but then fails to supply any scrap of evidence to suggest why this is the case. In this thread alone he has made statements about the wide applicability of marriage relationships throughout the ages and throughout cultures, but has failed to even attempt to justify them.
He is not, actually, arguing a logical position, he is arguing a position that a) he accepts and b) has internal consistency. That's not the same thing.
Now, I have no problem with revealed ethical positions. I am pleased to live in a country where all kinds of different beliefs are held by people who think that various deities have revealed themselves to them at different times.
I am happy that Roman Catholics can live here, can exercise their rituals and beliefs freely, and so on.
I happen to believe that of the collection of beliefs that encompass those who say "God says x", the one expressed by IngoB is one of the worst I have ever heard. But that's fine, who cares what I think anyway.
But what does matter is when someone with a "God says" theology tries to say that their belief is some kind of trump card which should be respected over and above the wishes of others in society. That isn't the society I want to live in.
You can declare anyone you like to be ordained under whichever rules you like. But you don't get to tell other religions who they can ordain, you don't get to tell the state who they should recognise under any religious tax advantages, you don't get to speak with final authority on these boards.
Your beliefs are just another claim to received ethics like every other buggers.
The dishonesty here is when IngoB claims he can prove something with logic when very clearly he is not using anything like logic at all.
Ding ding ding! Mr Cheesy wins this page of the thread. This is exactly it.
I would probably argue with a revealed position, yes. But it would be on an entirely different basis. The reason that Ingo generates such heat around here is that he tries not just to argue for his own position, but to dismiss and denigrate any other position by the way he frames the debate as one of inherent logic.
[ 12. July 2015, 00:45: 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
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The idea that Catholic teaching on certain subjects is entirely beyond the pale, something that "decent" people would have nothing to do with. That it should be fought tooth and nail - or at least pilloried - wherever it is encountered.
It isn't just the fact that it is Catholic teaching is necessarily the problem. The Catholics are welcome to believe whatever they want.
It is when they try to force those beliefs (or the corresponding behaviors) on non-Catholics, by law or otherwise, that is responsible for most of the reaction.
As an example on this thread, I don't really care if Catholics think I'm properly married or not because my marriage doesn't meet their criteria: I'm not a Catholic. But attempts to restrict secular marriage to make it conform with the Catholic teaching are, in my mind, "beyond the pale" and must be resisted.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Mr Cheesy: any scrap of evidence
Well evidence is a wide term. There is more to it than logic and experiment. IMV IngoB is not attempting to argue from any logical or material premise, he is attempting an argument from both history and from revelation that he claims does not counter any logical or materialistic premise and IMV he is kicking butt.
JAmat
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
IMV he is kicking butt.
The man has refused to talk about the role of women, despite his insistence that every marriage must have a woman in it, and you think he's kicking butt?
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But what does matter is when someone with a "God says" theology tries to say that their belief is some kind of trump card which should be respected over and above the wishes of others in society. That isn't the society I want to live in.
Exactly.
I wonder if IngoB would?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Cervantes' great protagonist Don Quioxte de la Mancha becomes intoxicated with romantic ideals from reading the chivalric novels and sets out on a quest. He imagines himself to be a noble Knight of the kind he reads in the novels, puts on a rusty suit of armour and a metal bowl for a helmet, saddles up his knackered horse and sets out to find some 'daring-do' to perform for the sake of the honour of his lady Dulchinea (who is really a local wench).
Don Quioxte imagines himself into all kinds of stupid situations - fighting giants, rescuing maidens, releasing captives - none of which are real. In his mind, inns become castles, prostitutes become fine maidens, madmen become princes.
Everyone he meets is amazed by this strange character, who so repeatedly proves himself out of his mind, and yet can conjour up fantastically lyrical speeches and can at times speak for long lucid periods.
At times other characters enter into his delusion, either for entertainment or to try to snap him back to sanity. His redoubtable squire Pancho Panza, a stupid but faithful neighbour, continues at his side through many silly adventures for the promise of an impossible prize. At times Sancho and other characters manipulate Don Quioxte in his delusion in order to get what they want.
The question remains: has Don Quioxte somehow been able to bring into being a reality from his own imagining by sheer force of effort? Is he really 'winning' against the foes which only actually exist within his head? When he slaughters the giant in the night, is this prowess or just a waste of a lot of wine?
Or is he just some crazy fool with a metal bowl on his head?
IngoB - that's you that is.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
One crazy fool running around with an idea and metal bowl on the head isn't too much of a problem. Lots of people running around with identical metal bowls and the same idea is.
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Mr Cheesy: any scrap of evidence
Well evidence is a wide term. There is more to it than logic and experiment. IMV IngoB is not attempting to argue from any logical or material premise, he is attempting an argument from both history and from revelation that he claims does not counter any logical or materialistic premise and IMV he is kicking butt.
JAmat
Well, if people want to use natural law within Christian theology, no problem, since they can preface everything with 'God created ...'. Thus, God created marriage as a procreative instrument, and so on.
However, this thread is about ssm, which is normally couched within secular legal frameworks. Of course, natural law can be secularized, but then attempts to see a logic or an 'order' to nature, without divine creation, seem very sticky to me. I mean, of course, you can impute such an order to nature, but it smacks strongly of teleology, and you have a lot of work to do to demonstrate that in a non-religious framework.
If you are saying that secular law should follow divine revelation, sure, keep taking the tablets.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
The Catholics are welcome to believe whatever they want.
Very much obliged to you. Are they allowed to communicate - like, out loud and everything - what they believe to others too? Or is that beyond the pale?
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
It is when they try to force those beliefs (or the corresponding behaviors) on non-Catholics, by law or otherwise, that is responsible for most of the reaction.
And the prize for scruffiest straw man goes to... Carex (and mr cheesy and quetzcoatl and...). Except in states where the Church IS or completely controls the government (um, the Holy See and, er...) when and how is this coersion supposed to take place?
What is the difference between, on the one hand, campaigning for or against a change in the law by openly taking a stand in a public debate and, on the other, "trying to force those beliefs" on those who do not necessarily already share them?
What the Catholic Church wants is no more or less than what any other body or party or group or individual has: the right freely to make her case in public.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the Catholic Church wants is no more or less than what any other body or party or group or individual has: the right freely to make her case in public.
ISTM what you want is the right freely to make your case in public, without robust criticism.
That's not going to happen here, or most other places now. Better get used to it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the Catholic Church wants is no more or less than what any other body or party or group or individual has: the right freely to make her case in public.
ISTM what you want is the right freely to make your case in public, without robust criticism.
That's not going to happen here, or most other places now. Better get used to it.
If one of the tactics the Roman Catholic Church is going to use is to deny salvation to those who refuse to toe the party line, doesn't that mean "making a case" has gone too far?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This shows that at that period in time, race was seen as an essential element of marriage, more so than the begetting and rearing of children.
No, this does not show that it was "more so". That is like saying that the prohibition against drunk driving means being sober is "more essential" to driving a car than moving between places, which is of course nonsense. They merely added a mistaken condition to who can marry, a condition that could have been shown as mistaken precisely from the ordering of marriage to procreation. Your error however is not the removal of a false condition, but rather the abolishment of the very principle of marriage. The people they falsely excluded from marriage could have formed a procreative union, they people you falsely include into marriage cannot form a procreative union.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If this is part of your argument, then you need to show that.
I have, using natural moral law. And I have shown that various other approaches other people brought into play at least do not speak against that. That you are not satisfied by that is frankly your problem. There are limits to talking sense into someone.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I can show is that marriage was more about racial criteria than it was about the begetting and rearing of children.
No, you cannot. In fact, that is plain silly, since of course the primary worry driving such laws is precisely the mixing of the races. And the races are getting mixed because the interracial couples have offspring. What offends ideologies of "racial purity" is not primarily people living together, nor even having sex with each other as such, it is the resulting "not one, not the other" children that make interracial marriage truly intolerable to racists.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This shows that race was a more essential element of the definition of marriage than the begetting and rearing of children.
Nope. Just like you are not denying a brother and sister the right to marry each other because the incest taboo is more essential to marriage. Rather, the incest taboo is in place precisely because marriage is expected to result in offspring (and between siblings, is expected to be negatively affected). What you can say is that back then in Brazil "racial purity" was considered more important than marriage, but not that it was a more essential element of marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, show it. Show me how you get from "inducing vomiting without a health reason is morally wrong" (which is what you asked for, which is what I gave you) to "masturbation is morally wrong". Show me a series of logical steps that gets me from one point to the other. This is a direct challenge. You say that you can do it. Show me.
To repeat, I have already done so. In the paragraph below the one about vomiting I constructed the parallel argument for masturbation.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your general rule says nothing about completion of a simulation (it only talks about completion of the bodily process, and there completion is a good thing). It says nothing about effects down the chain. It says nothing about the difference between performing a simulation and enjoying the side effects.
What is this nonsense? I have never said that the rule I've given somehow comprises the entirety of natural moral law argument. And it is completely unreasonable to expect that a single rule can determine an entire field. No part of human knowledge works like that. Entire books have been written about natural moral law, and they cannot be compressed into a sentence.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You need universality for your argument, so you need to show it.
I do not need universality in an absolute sense. After all, this whole discussion is triggered by an entire society of hundreds of million people abandoning the principle that I claim underlies marriage - at least formally so, by juridical edict. That dogs have four legs is not undermined by the occasional dog with three legs. That dog simply has a bodily defect, it is missing a leg. Of course, it is reasonable to assume that what is in the nature of a thing is what it shows forth most of the time. But that is rule of the thumb, not a perfect law. And anyway, the problem we have here is one of deduction. We are not asking about the universality of some fact, but about the universality of a conclusion from certain facts. And here we have a problem: you can simply deny the conclusions even if you see the fact before you. Just what constellation of facts would it make it inevitable for you to admit that marriage in a specific case is ordered to procreation? Short of people literally signing their name to a statement of that effect, you can always consider telltale signs (men and women join up in marriage, there are social provisions for their expected children, inheritance law follows procreation patterns, ...) as epiphenomena and declare something else as the true foundation (like the wish to live one's life together).
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What IngoB pretends is more than that though. For over 10 years he's pretended he can show that if we just observe nature and apply logic to that, we'll end up with Catholic theology.
This is plain and simply untrue. I maintain a very clean distinction between natural theology / metaphysics and revealed theology. I dare you to find even a single post where I confuse these. Instead, I have often discussed in quite some detail how far the natural intellect can take us in theology, and where it necessarily fails without revelation.
Furthermore, even for the much more restricted field of morals I have never maintained that all Catholic morality follows from nature. I have not even maintained that a Catholic life best be based on "natural moral law". The reason why I go on about "natural moral law" here is quite simply that most people, at least most people here disagreeing with me, are not Catholic. Of course, it would be very convenient (and is hence continuously being suggested) if I just said "well, these are the rules for Catholics, you do what you please". Natural moral law is the only argumentative way to break this convenient "putting in a box" - that's the reason why I end up relying on it, not because it is the be all and end all for a Catholic.
Finally, "natural morals" are merely a foundation for a Christian, a foundation upon which grace builds. I have made an explicit statement along those lines already above, when I mentioned that the question of whether one can divorce a partner over sterility is a valid one in natural moral law, but not for the Christian who obeys the supernatural command of the Lord. However, grace does not destroy nature, it elevates it to something higher.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is hardly a radical philosophical idea that there is a difference between a revealed and a logical truth about ethics. But according to IngoB, there is no difference. All truth is logical, and therefore his truth is true - not because it is revealed but because it is logical. Hence he says it is as logical as his science.
Neither is that my opinion, nor have I said anything here that would suggest that there is no such thing as properly revealed truth by God - in particular also ethical revelation by God. For example, God has revealed to you that divorce is against his will for mankind. Natural moral law at best could guess at that, but likely cannot prove it. However, truth does not contradict truth, and grace does not destroy nature. Where we can derive moral law from the nature of things, it does represent ethical truth. An imperfect and incomplete truth perhaps, and one that can be elevated beyond itself by grace. But a truth nonetheless. The discussion we are having here arises because gay marriage is not even in accord with natural moral law, we do not need the help of revelation to reject it. It is also by the way a general rule that some truths will be revealed by God which can be deduced from nature. And this entire thread is a perfect demonstration why God might want to do this. People will be able to follow arguments with varying success, and people can rationalise their opinions with great ease. The theoretical possibility to derive something from nature does not guarantee that in practice this is done correctly. Therefore truths are revealed for our sake even where this is not in principle necessary.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the Catholic Church wants is no more or less than what any other body or party or group or individual has: the right freely to make her case in public.
ISTM what you want is the right freely to make your case in public, without robust criticism.
What? Who came within a country mile of suggesting that, precisely?
Carex said it was unacceptable for Catholics to try to force people to adopt our principles - something else no-one was remotely suggesting should be or was being allowed. What I suspect she meant was that it was unacceptable for us to attempt to persuade people to agree with us. Now that's very different, and a little scary.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If one of the tactics the Roman Catholic Church is going to use is to deny salvation to those who refuse to toe the party line, doesn't that mean "making a case" has gone too far?
It is to laugh. Those who dissent from the Catholic Church over this sort of thing generally don't believe in "salvation" as something real, or as something the Church can withhold from them, or at the very least something which they could lose over these sorts of issues.
But, given the Church does believe that people really can lose their chances of salvation, and that that is the worst thing that can ever happen to anyone, accusing the Church of "going too far" by reminding people of that is rather like accsuing physicians of undue pressure for advising their patients to avoid heavy smoking, drinking and saturated fats. Even then, people can and do frequently ignore them.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: No, this does not show that it was "more so". That is like saying that the prohibition against drunk driving means being sober is "more essential" to driving a car than moving between places, which is of course nonsense.
When someone is driving drunk, we still say that he is driving a car, even if he is doing it in a way he isn't allowed to. Mixed-race couples were never considered to be married whatever they did, even if they wanted to have children. Ergo, race was a more important factor than offspring in defining marriage.
quote:
IngoB: What you can say is that back then in Brazil "racial purity" was considered more important than marriage, but not that it was a more essential element of marriage.
LOL, no-one really tried to conserve racial purity in Brazil. 'Non-pure' children were produced all the time.
quote:
IngoB: To repeat, I have already done so. In the paragraph below the one about vomiting I constructed the parallel argument for masturbation.
Parallel argument isn't proof. Given: inducing vomiting without a health reason is morally bad. Show me that masturbation is morally bad.
You can't do it. You wouldn't be able to construct a logical argument if it bit you in the arse. What you can do is give analogies and wave your hands around a lot, but that's not what is required if you want to make an argument.
Cards. Table. A logical argument, getting me from A to B. Show me that you can do it.
quote:
IngoB: What is this nonsense? I have never said that the rule I've given somehow comprises the entirety of natural moral law argument.
Blablabla.
You've given a general rule that indicates when some things are immoral. According to the general that you gave, chewing gum is immoral.
When pointed to that, you gave a lot of yesbuts that have nothing to do with your general rule. Twice. If these yesbuts show that chewing gum is moral, they have to be in your general rule. And now you're blablaing about natural moral law and whatnot, trying to move the frame away again from the rule you gave.
Either chewing gum is immoral, or your general rule is wrong. That's logic. The reast is blabla and bullshitting.
(This is what you do: the general framework in which you reason is never clear. You deliberately refrain from giving one by only using analogies the whole fucking time. So that when people take you up on your reasoning, you can always wriggle out of it. And after I've forced you to give a general rule, you blabla and bullshit away from it. This is how you 'argue'.)
quote:
IngoB: That dogs have four legs is ...
Blabla and bullshit. I haven't even read the rest of this paragraph.
You made the argument that marriage is universally considered across cultures to be about producing offspring.
Show it. I don't care how many fucking legs fucking dogs have.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Masturbation and vomit pretty well sums up this thread.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
It is when they try to force those beliefs (or the corresponding behaviors) on non-Catholics, by law or otherwise, that is responsible for most of the reaction.
And the prize for scruffiest straw man goes to... Carex (and mr cheesy and quetzcoatl and...). Except in states where the Church IS or completely controls the government (um, the Holy See and, er...) when and how is this coersion supposed to take place?
I'm not sure which planet you are calling in from, Chesterbollocks, but over here on the Planet Have-a-Fucking-Clue, a "Straw Man" argument is one where you make up shit rather than engaging with the one your opponent is putting forward. Y'know, like IngoB did above with his made-up tribe and like he is continuing to do with personal anacdotes and irrelevant examples which might-or-might not be different to the point we're discussing.
Here is a helpful guide you can examine the next time you accuse someone of a logical fallacy.
Second, I have never said that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to force views onto others, so that's just a lie.
Third, I do believe that IngoB is trying to suggest that his views should be forced onto society because, according to him, they are obviously, inarguably true.
Finally, whilst the Holy See does have a bizarre status under international law, very clearly there are also states in the world where the Roman Catholic Church has a very great amount of influence. Fortunately, at least one of these, the Republic of Ireland, has rebelled against the Church.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Neither is that my opinion, nor have I said anything here that would suggest that there is no such thing as properly revealed truth by God - in particular also ethical revelation by God. For example, God has revealed to you that divorce is against his will for mankind. Natural moral law at best could guess at that, but likely cannot prove it.
If one thinks that one can reason that monogomous long term relationships are desirable, I'm pretty sure that one could reason that divorce is a bad idea - given that they are part of the same idea.
quote:
However, truth does not contradict truth, and grace does not destroy nature. Where we can derive moral law from the nature of things, it does represent ethical truth. An imperfect and incomplete truth perhaps, and one that can be elevated beyond itself by grace. But a truth nonetheless.
You just said a whole lot of nothing there. Of course revealed truth contradicts logical truth. That's the whole frigging point of it - you can't work it out on your own.
quote:
The discussion we are having here arises because gay marriage is not even in accord with natural moral law, we do not need the help of revelation to reject it.
I don't accept the definitions you are using here. Because there is nothing inherrently against natural law that says homosexuality is against nature. Let me introduce you to nature, where homosexual behaviours are common. But then, so is eating your male partner immediately after copulation. I don't suppose you think that fits within any kind of natural ethics.
As I said above, the only moral lesson you learn from nature is that you can't learn moral lessons from nature.
quote:
It is also by the way a general rule that some truths will be revealed by God which can be deduced from nature.
Right, I see. So, please inform me exactly how you are deducing that monogomous human relationships are the natural way of things. Feel free to use actual examples of behaviours in nature in your answer.
quote:
And this entire thread is a perfect demonstration why God might want to do this. People will be able to follow arguments with varying success, and people can rationalise their opinions with great ease. The theoretical possibility to derive something from nature does not guarantee that in practice this is done correctly. Therefore truths are revealed for our sake even where this is not in principle necessary.
No, no, don't worry I get it: you are batshit insane. And not only do you know nothing about nature, you also know nothing about philosophy or even how to form an argument. I'd also postulate from this that you also know very little about Roman Catholic theology - because if what you've said on this thread about marriage is all there is.. well God help us all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
So I think it's bullshit to imply that it's not the content of IngoB's beliefs that is the problem - that it's not that he's a believing Catholic - but the manner in which he argues for them.
...
You don't want the tecachings themselves - however articulated - to have any respectability, socially or intellectually. Isn't that the truth?
...
Really? So if IngoB conducted himself in precisely the same way but in favour of your side on thse issues, you would criticise him just as energetically rather than applaud his skewering of the opposition? Do you really think you would do that?
...
I never said that folks had nothing against IngoB's way of arguing too, just that the teachings he's defending - however he's defending them - have already been deemed in themselves (by their content) inherently unacceptable to most people here. Fair enough. But have the honesty to admit that just as, in the past, Croesus and Justinian - oh, and Hilary Mantel - have.
Unlike some people here, I really don't care if Bingo wants to make Catholic teachings universal. Even if he wanted to enforce them at gunpoint, I would still maintain much the same stance: I disagree with him, but find his explanations of Catholic doctrine interesting and informative.
The reason I detest him, and mistype his name at every opportunity is, quite simply, because Bingo insists on telling me what I think. He's constantly saying "Well, you support X because you find it easier than following God", or "you believe Y because it allows you to behave in ways you like", or "you only stay Protestant because you're rebellious", or, most recently, "you don't actually disagree with me - inside your heart, you ACTUALLY believe natural moral law, but your sex drive makes it convenient to pretend to yourself that you don't".
I HATE HIM AND HIS PETTY INSISTENCE ON TELLING ME WHAT IS HAPPENING IN MY OWN BRAIN. (Incorrectly on every occassion, as it happens.)
Why do I mention this now?
Because you, Chesterbelloc, are, above, attempting to repeatedly do the same thing. "You don't really have a problem with the way he argues. Really, you dislike him because you have a problem with Catholics." NO. NO I DON'T. AND QUIT FUCKING TELLING ME WHAT I FUCKING THINK.
Back the hell off, and try actually believing what people say.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What? Who came within a country mile of suggesting that, precisely?
What other than when IngoB waa-waa-waaed about the nation redefining marriage without asking, or when you waa-waa-waaed about the general way of things on this board being anti-Roman Catholic?
Fact is, you'd like nothing less that having those in charge kowtowing to the Roman Catholic Church and doing exactly what you say and nothing else. That's the truth of it. You don't actually want to live in a free liberal society where rules are made for the benefit of everyone, you want to live in a theocracy, right?
quote:
Carex said it was unacceptable for Catholics to try to force people to adopt our principles - something else no-one was remotely suggesting should be or was being allowed. What I suspect she meant was that it was unacceptable for us to attempt to persuade people to agree with us. Now that's very different, and a little scary.
Fine, then stop teaching your theology to children in state-funded schools. If you are so sure of your position and your abilities to win arguments, then stop taking all the tax benefits and special dispensations which give you a privileged position to spout your theology over-and-above other religions (say, for example the Muslims - who have very few state-funded schools, and the Mormons who have none, to name just two). Speak in the town square if you must, but don't expect any state assistance to do it.
And anyway, the debate is always framed in the way that opponents of gay marriage are somehow speaking for God, not that you have a decent argument which should be listened to. In fact, you don't have a decent argument, because fails every hurdle of logic, so you have nothing to revert to other than a claim to special divine knowledge. Which is just one claim amoungst thousands of others. Funnily enough, your views don't weigh any higher than anyone elses - and providing your religious liberties are protected, you don't actually have any special status in society.
quote:
]It is to laugh. Those who dissent from the Catholic Church over this sort of thing generally don't believe in "salvation" as something real, or as something the Church can withhold from them, or at the very least something which they could lose over these sorts of issues.
I see. So there are no gay Roman Catholics and there are no people who disagree with you who are bothered about their eternal salvation.
You are delusional, pal.
quote:
But, given the Church does believe that people really can lose their chances of salvation, and that that is the worst thing that can ever happen to anyone, accusing the Church of "going too far" by reminding people of that is rather like accsuing physicians of undue pressure for advising their patients to avoid heavy smoking, drinking and saturated fats. Even then, people can and do frequently ignore them.
Really. You really believe that someone's salvation is at risk because they disagree with you about the theology of marriage.
Yeah, OK, whatever.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Masturbation and vomit pretty well sums up this thread.
NP wins this page.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
What the Catholic Church wants is no more or less than what any other body or party or group or individual has: the right freely to make her case in public.
And what is that case, exactly? That divorce and non-procreative straight marriages were departures with Catholic theology you could live with, but somehow recognizing homosexual relationships is beyond the pale?
Or that divorce and non-procreative straight marriages were bad mistakes and the State should come back into the fold?
Because the latter looks more to me like the thing Ingo argues for, and it would in some ways be the more intellectually honest position. In some ways I really wish that the Catholic Church, and some other Christians, would argue for what they actually believe in, because it would even up the numbers quite nicely: it wouldn't just be the gays who would be put out, but large numbers of straight people.
But no, in my experience, the Catholic Church in public tends to confine itself to discussing the hot topic out of the departures from the Catholic marriage ideal, leaving the other departures alone because they are lost causes.
[ 12. July 2015, 22:21: 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc wrote:
And the prize for scruffiest straw man goes to... Carex (and mr cheesy and quetzcoatl and...). Except in states where the Church IS or completely controls the government (um, the Holy See and, er...) when and how is this coersion supposed to take place?
Could you help me here? Are you suggesting that I said that the Catholic Church wants to coerce people? I would never normally say something like that, and I can't find any such reference, but maybe you could give me the citation, so I can study it and maybe correct it. I am good friends with many Catholics and value contact with them a lot, so it is quite an upsetting accusation.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But no, in my experience, the Catholic Church in public tends to confine itself to discussing the hot topic out of the departures from the Catholic marriage ideal, leaving the other departures alone because they are lost causes.
Extrapolation: Once they accept that marriage equality is a lost cause, they'll move onto something else.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But no, in my experience, the Catholic Church in public tends to confine itself to discussing the hot topic out of the departures from the Catholic marriage ideal, leaving the other departures alone because they are lost causes.
Extrapolation: Once they accept that marriage equality is a lost cause, they'll move onto something else.
One can only hope.
The debate was interesting when, in 2008, homosexual de facto couples in Australia were put in virtually the same legal position as heterosexual de facto couples. There was a small scattering of conservatives who suddenly realised that what they really wanted to argue was that married couples should be treated specially, but most of them were unwilling to argue this fully because it would mean demanding that entitlements be taken off heterosexual de factos (who'd been largely equalised with married couples many many years earlier).
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Chesterbelloc wrote:
And the prize for scruffiest straw man goes to... Carex (and mr cheesy and quetzcoatl and...). Except in states where the Church IS or completely controls the government (um, the Holy See and, er...) when and how is this coersion supposed to take place?
Could you help me here? Are you suggesting that I said that the Catholic Church wants to coerce people?
Hell, I'll say it, 'cause they did try to coerce people. Actually, they kinda temporarily succeeded. The Catholic Church made a significant effort to control the lives of people who do not subscribe to their religion. Not that they were the only ones, still makes them no less guilty.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In some ways I really wish that the Catholic Church, and some other Christians, would argue for what they actually believe in, because it would even up the numbers quite nicely: it wouldn't just be the gays who would be put out, but large numbers of straight people.
But no, in my experience, the Catholic Church in public tends to confine itself to discussing the hot topic out of the departures from the Catholic marriage ideal, leaving the other departures alone because they are lost causes.
The RCC in several countries has fought against and even prevented divorce and abortion, etc. I would have thought that in many countries the RCC was there to fight the state when these laws were being introduced, but there's no point in flogging a dead horse. When you lose you move on to the next battle.
No one doubts that the RCC is a conservative institution on sexual matters, and it has always been viewed with suspicion in majority Protestant Western countries. People who would be disgusted by the 'real' RCC position already have reasons to feel that way.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Present company unacceptable, there actually some decent Roman Catholic people in the world. Who understand theology, dogma, history, real lives as lived, and the differences among them.
It's undoubtedly stupid to suggest that a definition of sin might help in hell. And whether something is a sin against dogma of a religious organization or against what we imagine God is and which matters more.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure which planet you are calling in from, Chesterbollocks, but over here on the Planet Have-a-Fucking-Clue, a "Straw Man" argument is one where you make up shit rather than engaging with the one your opponent is putting forward.
Like that Roman Catholics are trying to force views onto others, for example? Or as Carex said: "when they try to force those beliefs (or the corresponding behaviors) on non-Catholics, by law or otherwise"?
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have never said that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to force views onto others, so that's just a lie.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
what does matter is when someone with a "God says" theology tries to say that their belief is some kind of trump card which should be respected over and above the wishes of others in society.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I do believe that IngoB is trying to suggest that his views should be forced onto society because, according to him, they are obviously, inarguably true.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Present company unacceptable, there actually some decent Roman Catholic people in the world. Who understand theology, dogma, history, real lives as lived, and the differences among them.
Just as a matter of interest, would any of those "decent" Catholics be ones who actually accept their Church's teachings on any DH issues? Or would that see them forfeit their "decent" status?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Like that Roman Catholics are trying to force views onto others, for example? Or as Carex said: "when they try to force those beliefs (or the corresponding behaviors) on non-Catholics, by law or otherwise"?
I can tell the difference between IngoB and the RCC even if you can't.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Just as a matter of interest, would any of those "decent" Catholics be ones who actually accept their Church's teachings on any DH issues? Or would that see them forfeit their "decent" status?
If these Catholics try to shoehorn their crazy-ass beliefs into the secular law by applying the dubious tactics and logic that IngoB has been using here, then yeah, they forfeit all notions of decency.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
... and you've just done it again. You're the gift that just keeps on giving.
But I was speaking to no prophet.
[ 13. July 2015, 14:22: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
When you lose you move on to the next battle.
There's probably a whole other thread in this, but that strikes me as tactics rather than principles.
If the whole essence of this is a belief in some kind of eternal truth, then giving up after losing doesn't exactly sound right.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There's probably a whole other thread in this, but that strikes me as tactics rather than principles.
If the whole essence of this is a belief in some kind of eternal truth, then giving up after losing doesn't exactly sound right.
I am sure that is true, what is being given up is the tactic of attempting to influence secular politics with a religious agenda - rather than the belief itself.
Of course, the irony is that many religious bodies in many countries are at odds with national religious practice on marriage, to the extent that their own practices do not meet the standards for secular marriage (and therefore anyone getting married needs to register via a secular proceedure to be acknowledged by the state).
There is no difference here - religious group can set whatever rules they like on marriage, the state has no particular reason to listen to them nor to take account of their bizarre attempts to limit other people's rights.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
[In response to orfeo]
So what do you think the Church should do, having lost the divorce and abortion battles? All we can do is persuade and having failed to persuade, what then?
We get plenty schtick for fighting these battles in the first place - including on Ship threads just like this one. And as it happens, the Church does keep trying to encourage changes in the abortion laws in plenty of countries, and gets dogs' abuse for it.
What do we have to do to prove we're sincere about our principles - become terrorists?
[ 13. July 2015, 14:44: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
