|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The next person I hear...
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Legal recognition of gay marriage will lead to more defined rights for gay couples (re inheritance, etc) which will lead to more people getting married.
I'm not sure that this is necessarily true; it depends on the nature of the benefits offered, and how widely they apply to non-married people. Moreover, SSM is often legal in Western societies where increasing numbers of straight couples are choosing not to marry, regardless of potential access to benefits. This suggests that benefits are not a major part of people's thinking when it comes to deciding whether to marry.
ISTM that one must argue either that SSM, like many other changes in society, emphasises equality and the freedom of choice (i.e. that marriage is merely one of several valid lifestyles options, but should be available to all) or else that SSM is the conservative option which accepts that both gay and straight unmarried partnerships should be discriminated against because it's the protection offered by marriage above all that matters. I'm not sure if it's possible to argue for both of these things at the same time.
[ 15. July 2015, 22:07: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Of course if Ireland had decided to hold a referendum, as it did, it was bound to act in accordance with the results of that referendum. It wouldn't stop me thinking that the Irish government and people had made collectively an oppressive decision.
About which you think what - if anything - should have been done? Do you think the Irish people would have a had a right so to decide? Would their right so to decide have depended on how they reached this decision?
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do not think this is about "rights". It is not about demonstrating that gay people have a "right" to marry. It's about freedoms.
That's interesting, because almost everyone else here in favour of gay marriage has framed the argument in terms of rights. That's just an observation, not a criticism. But surely freedoms, in the political context, are pretty much acknowledgements of pre-existing (or in some cases specially conferred) rights, so I'm not quite sure what distinction you are drawing here.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If gay people want to marry, then it is up to those who would so frame the law to prevent them to present a reason for doing so - and at that, in a free secular country - a reason that doesn't boil down to "it's against my religion".
I repeat, it is usually incumbent upon those who want to change existing laws to demonstrate why that change should take place. But anyway, why should religiously informed/motivated reasons be less politically considerable that any other "opinion-based" reasons - whether intimately personal, ideological, or whatever? Should the Irish votes influenced by religiously informed grounds have had their votes counted for less than those who voted on the grounds of a particular "secular" philosophical/ideological opinion? What about those religiously inspired votes which were in favour of gay marriage? What about another issue like immigration: should religiously inspired votes - say, those which may be grounded in a thelogical concept like the inherent equal dignity of those of all nationalities as being brothers and sisters under the fatherhood of God - count for less then too? Should there be a qualifying test for how much your vote should be worth? Because that seems to me to be an implication of what you are arguing.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which would be why the Irish people would have made the wrong decision had they voted against. And presumably why, despite the almost proverbial strength of the Irish RCC, they voted for.
Ah, so the "right" decision for the Irish is what you think it should be - it was predetermined that a no vote would have been wrong. In which case, why should the politicians have allowed the Irish people the "right" to get it "wrong"? And given that a result would have been so "wrong" what do you think should have done about it?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
As an aside, there are very few topics that actively make me think less of organized religions than this one. Countering all the discoveries I've had on these boards over the years reassuring me of the many and varied social benefits possible by the existence of organized religions. Admittedly, I am far from impartial in such considerations, but some individuals capacity for furthering the concepts of forgiveness and acceptance have been quietly profound for me.
But the fundamentally petty and blatantly inconsiderate nature of this topic scribes a burning boundary of a Venn diagram. Opposing marriage equality = unworthy. And a couple people are working hard to assure us that their faith fits entirely and consistently as a subset thereof.
Ah - there it is. The revelatory piece to explain the urge for such assholery. We are, many of us, unaware of the ZEROTH COMMANDMENT:
Above all else, regardless of implications, thou shalt be consistent.
Technical win for the Really Consistent Church, while failing to actually mind any of what Christ supposedly was about.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I do not think this is about "rights". It is not about demonstrating that gay people have a "right" to marry. It's about freedoms.
That's interesting, because almost everyone else here in favour of gay marriage has framed the argument in terms of rights. That's just an observation, not a criticism. But surely freedoms, in the political context, are pretty much acknowledgements of pre-existing (or in some cases specially conferred) rights, so I'm not quite sure what distinction you are drawing here.
*flashback to law school* Yes, we tend to talk about "rights" to cover 3 or 4 different kinds of things, some of which are positive abilities to do things, some of which are freedoms from others doing things to us.
What's correct here depends on what you're talking about. In most of the Western world, same-sex couples already have the freedom to live together openly (but not in other parts of the world). But I don't think marriage is a freedom in that sense, because marriage requires State action - an act of recognition.
--------------------
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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Rights are not eternal. There are definitely rights that exist now, and are acknowledged to exist, that did not exist 500 years ago.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
And I am not hetereo-typing just now, nor is anyone SS-typing on this thread.
What, there are special keyboards? Who knew!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The onus is not on me to prove equal marriage would cause no harm; it is on its opponents to prove that it would, and so far I've seen little beyond hypothesis and slippery slopes.
To be honest, I'm not sure whether the burden of proof rests more heavily on one side than the other - although, traditionally those advocating for change do bear a greater evidential burden. But let's lay that aside.
All I'm really arguing against is the idea that the Church should not allowed to attempt to influence the decision one way or another - especially on grounds which beg the very question, like "But your side is denying gays the right to marry!" Let's have an open and frank debate and let the process work itself out in whatever way the particular society in question has for that (in Ireland, it was a plebiscite) rather than trying to shame-silence one side of the argument in advance.
I asked this of mousethief and I'd like to ask you the same thing: quote:
What do you think, for example, should have happened if a clear majority in the recent plebiscite in Ireland had voted against the notion that same-sex partners could marry? What if a lot of people have voted no in part because they'd been persuaded by the sorts of arguments the Church was using, and/or the natural law arguments IngoB has used in this thread - should those votes have been discounted? Should the Church and others arguing these sorts of stances not have been allowed to campaign in the first place? Should only those advocating for the change have been allowed to influence opinion?
You've made various versions of this point/asked various versions of this question a number of times now. And it's a fair point, and I've been trying to think how to answer it.
I think you've finally given me a way in, with the phrase "shame-silence".
Because the irony is, for a very long time it was the church that was able to "shame-silence" opposition, with talk of sin and threats of damnation.
The whole problem is that the argument is not an equal and opposite one with two "sides". I hinted at this before, but now I need to expand it.
There are two ways in which the argument is fundamentally unequal.
The first is that one side is talking about their own lives, and the other side is... also talking about the first side's lives. An equal argument would be one side saying "we should be able to do this" and the other side saying "we should not be able to do this". But what is actually happening in this argument is that Side A is saying "we should be able to do this" and Side B is saying "Side A should not be able to do this".
And this is what lies behind the mix of anger and bewilderment on Side A that comes out as "this doesn't affect you, why do you care so much?". No-one will force Catholics to get gay-married or to conduct gay marriages. The outcome of this debate does not affect straight Catholics who don't wish to participate in gay marriages or gay weddings. What's being asked for isn't active participation but no active opposition.
There was a brilliant Irish marriage equality ad several years back that illustrated what it's like to have to ask several million people for permission to marry. Now that that permission has been granted, once, homosexual couples in Ireland won't ever have to ask permission of the general populace again, in the same way that heterosexual couples don't have to ask permission of the general populace (and in particular, non-Christian couples don't have to ask the church's permission).
The second type of inequality, and the one that is most pertinent to your point, is in the type of argument being presented. The church is bringing a morality argument to the table. This is fairly evident, because any time it tries to switch to a scientific argument or social effects argument against same-sex marriage, it goes down in flames because it is either lacking evidence or downright contrary to the evidence.
And once upon a time, a morality argument was a trump card. Hardly anyone wanted to do anything immoral or be seen to be doing anything immoral, and the church was the definitive judge of what was immoral. Ideas of sin and hell and damnation (however nicely expressed, that's still what's being talked about) were enough to "shame-silence" anyone who didn't think that something looked so bad in this earthly life.
But the world has changed. A morality argument is no longer a winning one - I wouldn't say that people have no sense of morality, but they're conscious that the same morality is not shared by everyone, and they certainly don't accept the church as the judge of morality. Morality is now subjective, not objective. What is seen as objective is science and study of evidence.
And so that's what's happening: what you see as "shame-silencing" the church is people's perception that the church is bringing the wrong kind of argument to the table, and trying to win through a tactic that is no longer seen as valid. People dislike an appeal to morals from what was an all-powerful body regarding morals, because they see it as an attempt to reassert that power. They see it as an attempt to shift the argument back to a kind of argument that has been rejected.
An argument against same-sex marriage that was seen as having an evidentiary basis would be argued against, but IMHO it would not be "shame-silenced". It would be seen as a fair fight. But the church is seen as trying to create an unfair fight by appealing, in whatever way, to notions of the eternal fate of people's souls rather than practical evidence of any harm caused by same-sex relationships. And when people DO claim to have practical evidence of harm, it regularly comes across as illegitimate because of the way the information has been manipulated.
--------------------
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
ADDENDUM: Just to give an example of what I mean by manipulated evidence...
At one stage, Christian opponents of same-sex marriage were fond of citing a Dutch study as evidence that while a marriage could be expected to last an average of 30 years, a same-sex relationship would only last an average of 2 years.
The Dutch study being used to support this was a study of gay men in central Amsterdam who were in open relationships and aged in their 20s. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why the relationship period was shorter.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And once upon a time, a morality argument was a trump card. Hardly anyone wanted to do anything immoral or be seen to be doing anything immoral, and the church was the definitive judge of what was immoral. Ideas of sin and hell and damnation (however nicely expressed, that's still what's being talked about) were enough to "shame-silence" anyone who didn't think that something looked so bad in this earthly life.
But the world has changed. A morality argument is no longer a winning one - I wouldn't say that people have no sense of morality, but they're conscious that the same morality is not shared by everyone, and they certainly don't accept the church as the judge of morality. Morality is now subjective, not objective. What is seen as objective is science and study of evidence.
I think a lot of non-religious people have moved away from the idea that morality is relative, back to an idea that morality is objective, but which places human wellbeing at the centre of their view of objective morality. As a result, what we've seen happen is those people actively judge the church as immoral and evil for its stance against gay rights.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, fair enough, I can understand that way of looking at it.
--------------------
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
Aha. So what is human wellbeing - and how do we objectively determine that, and the moral rules that best support it?
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Aha. So what is human wellbeing
I'll give you a clue, Ingo: any reference to whether something is sinful won't be relevant.
Nor will any procreation requirement.
[ 16. July 2015, 00:35: 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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So what is human wellbeing
One way of thinking about it I sometimes find useful is "those things which a benevolent dispassionate third party would wish for a person."
In practice everyone knows what human wellbeing looks like when they see it. International surveys show cultures all around the world agree over the things that constitute human wellbeing.
But nailing down exactly what constitutes human wellbeing, and trying to promote more of it, is basically what the scientific field of Positive Psychology exists to do.
quote:
and the moral rules that best support it?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Increasing human wellbeing is the moral rule.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Aha. So what is human wellbeing - and how do we objectively determine that, and the moral rules that best support it?
You didn't read the article about the lack of wellbeing of gay people I posted above did you? Here you are again: Suicide related ideation and behavior among Canadian gay and bisexual men. Sample size of more than 8000. Lack of wellbeing is associated with being suicidal don't you agree? Or is it moral in your universe to push people to such psychological pain?
[ 16. July 2015, 02:17: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
and the moral rules that best support it?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Increasing human wellbeing is the moral rule.
What he probably means is that eventually he's going to tell you he knows the right way for people to live in order to have "wellbeing".
Coincidentally, this will be exactly the same way to live that you would live if you followed all the Church's teaching. Thus proving he's missed the point completely.
--------------------
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
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What he probably means is that eventually he's going to tell you he knows the right way for people to live in order to have "wellbeing".
Well in that sense, the fields of medicine, psychology, economics, sociology, history, and cultural anthropology, all have a lot to say about human wellbeing that is based on empirical research. Insofar as anything Ingo says contradicts basic scientific data, he's simply talking crap.
quote:
Coincidentally, this will be exactly the same way to live that you would live if you followed all the Church's teaching.
I'm pretty sure that his Church's Inquisition burning me at the stake for being gay wouldn't have promoted my wellbeing. Their more modern Church teachings on the subject are not really much better and boil down to suicide via stigma, ostracization, stress, depression, and loneliness.
quote:
Thus proving he's missed the point completely.
Seems pretty common with him.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No disagreement with anything you just said, Starlight. And really, the first part of what you said was a key bit of what I was trying to get at with my lengthy post: the kind of argument that works now is one based on those fields and on research.
Much of which says, as no prophet has pointed out, that to the extent that homosexuals suffer worse outcomes it's a result of persecution, not as a result of anything inherent in homosexuality.
[ 16. July 2015, 03:43: 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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Aha. So what is human wellbeing - and how do we objectively determine that, and the moral rules that best support it?
Who is we?
Why do you think there are a single set of rules that ensure wellbeing any more than a single size of bed would ensure wellbeing for all who sleep in it?
You could start by eliminating anyone from the We who thinks that obeying an archaic abstract set of rules is more important than the happiness of the people involved. That would be you IngoB.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't understand why CB is so interested in discussing a hypothetical case of a no vote that didn't happen.
Is there actually anywhere with a RC majority which had the opportunity to vote down SSM marriage and did so?
I think perhaps what CB is getting at is that those who worked on the anti-slavery campaigns (in England) took many years to force through changes, with many votes against them. Therefore why should the RCC give up having lost the (temporary) momentum on the SSM question.
My answer to that is that the arch of history is towards freedom and justice. Antislavery was about humanising the disenfranchised, asserting their rights as people and ending a massive injustice. Those who fought against it were going to lose in the end.
The opponents of SSM are simply not on the same page as those who fought slavery. They are not trying to humanise anyone. They are not trying to consider the rights of people who have been historically left out from society. They are not ending an injustice.
It is simply a plain conservative argument that 'things have to stay the way they have always been.. because I say so'. Mixed in with a lot of other bullshit that doesn't actually stand up.
I repeat, nobody in any seriousness is arguing against the provisions of the Marriage Act 1836, which took away the rights of declaring who was and was not married from the Anglican Church in England. Because that would be stupid.
Nobody is arguing against the rights of other religions to marry whoever they like - providing they meet the minimum standards of civil marriage law. Because that would be stupid.
In time, I believe nobody will waste any time on a campaign against SSM. Because ultimately it will be a waste of effort when the vast majority of the population is not listening.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Aha. So what is human wellbeing - and how do we objectively determine that, and the moral rules that best support it?
One important aspect of wellbeing is having choices. So long as it does not harm others we should be allowed to choose what we do.
Having no choice and no voice is a cause of great stress and harm. (Of course, having too much choice can also be a cause of some stress, but that's another story)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
One important aspect of wellbeing is having choices. So long as it does not harm others we should be allowed to choose what we do.
I'm not sure harm to others is the only possible measure, sometimes freedoms are limited by the state due to risk of harm to oneself.
It seems to me that the perfectly rational way to determine these things is via
Rawl's Veil of Ignorance which comes out of the Social Contract philosophical school.
It seems to me that were one to leave aside previous moral opinions on homosexuality, from behind the veil of ignorance, most people of goodwill would support SSM - because there is little evidence of harm and much evidence of benefits to individuals and society.
The other spurious objections and comparisons (polygamy, marriage to goats, paedos etc) do not meet this standard objectively.
In my view this is why an increasing number of people, including those who hold a conservative Catholic view of marriage, can nonetheless see the value of having a state that legalises SSM.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is there actually anywhere with a RC majority which had the opportunity to vote down SSM marriage and did so?
Croatia voted to constitutionally ban SSM by referendum in 2013, which was engineered by the RCC.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll give you a clue, Ingo: any reference to whether something is sinful won't be relevant. Nor will any procreation requirement.
And that this is so can be objectively determined, how? On what grounds can anybody assess this, by what means can we all conclude it?
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
One way of thinking about it I sometimes find useful is "those things which a benevolent dispassionate third party would wish for a person."
This of course nothing but a restatement. What makes a person "benevolent" is that they wish the good, and that they are "dispassionate" makes them act objectively. But you thinking about such a person leaves your thoughts subjective. Perhaps it strips out some more obviously selfish concerns, by virtue of you trying to stand apart from yourself. But it is still you thinking, according to your standards and knowledge, it is not objective.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
In practice everyone knows what human wellbeing looks like when they see it. International surveys show cultures all around the world agree over the things that constitute human wellbeing.
Indeed, isn't that interesting? It is almost as if what constitutes human wellbeing is built into us. Do you think a more precise statement of that can be made?
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
But nailing down exactly what constitutes human wellbeing, and trying to promote more of it, is basically what the scientific field of Positive Psychology exists to do.
Yes, things get murky once we go beyond the absolute basics of human life, like being able to breathe or having access to water. We then need a more systematic approach, that's for sure. I don't know if Positive Psychology can deliver it, since I don't know what that is.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Increasing human wellbeing is the moral rule.
Well, I would say that is more a moral principle. When we apply this to concrete cases, we will find certain rules. For example, we will find that killing the innocent does not increase human wellbeing, and so we will conclude that murder is immoral. That's a moral rule which follows from this principle. I'm asking what other rules we can derive, and how we go about doing that.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Lack of wellbeing is associated with being suicidal don't you agree? Or is it moral in your universe to push people to such psychological pain?
Yes and no. But I would expect to see very similar findings if we looked at say a group of alcoholics. I have very little doubt that social marginalisation contributes considerably to the misery of alcoholics. Still, it is neither realistic nor appropriate to expect society to embrace alcoholics as entirely normal. (In Christian terms: "hate the sin, not the sinner" is a nice slogan, but putting it into practice is not trivial.) But more importantly, from the (likely) fact that alcoholics suffer under social marginalisation does not follow that alcoholism is neutral or good for their wellbeing.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What he probably means is that eventually he's going to tell you he knows the right way for people to live in order to have "wellbeing". Coincidentally, this will be exactly the same way to live that you would live if you followed all the Church's teaching.
It is indeed very easy to discern where I am going with all this, but unsurprisingly you are not getting it right.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Well in that sense, the fields of medicine, psychology, economics, sociology, history, and cultural anthropology, all have a lot to say about human wellbeing that is based on empirical research. Insofar as anything Ingo says contradicts basic scientific data, he's simply talking crap.
First, I'm not aware that anybody has shown that anything I have actually said contradicts "basic scientific data". I have not challenged all claims about what I am supposed to be saying, and some of those claims are likely in contradiction to known fact. But that is a different matter. Second, basic scientific data rarely says anything, interpretation is always required and rarely so straightforward that one can say that the data speaks for itself. Third, I'm always a bit bemused when I see this fervent belief in the correctness of "science". Every working scientist maintains a healthy scepticism about even published science. Particularly so in the "squishy" sciences... Here are the results of a study looking at reproducibility in Psychology. The good news is that some experiments actually could be reproduced. The bad news is that the majority of experiments could not be reproduced. I would agree that in say a century or so we probably know rather well what of the science published now is actually true. The scientific process does work. Slowly.
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I'm pretty sure that his Church's Inquisition burning me at the stake for being gay wouldn't have promoted my wellbeing. Their more modern Church teachings on the subject are not really much better and boil down to suicide via stigma, ostracization, stress, depression, and loneliness.
The Church has burned people at the stake for being gay? Whom, when and where? For the most part the Inquisition was busy with heresy, not morality. As for the attribution of all ills that befall homosexuals to the condemnation of (active) homosexuality, see my comment above on alcoholism.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Who is we? Why do you think there are a single set of rules that ensure wellbeing any more than a single size of bed would ensure wellbeing for all who sleep in it?
Well, I am pretty sure that we would agree on some universally shared features of human wellbeing. You would probably not like to live in a poisoned environment with no access to clean water, insufficient food resources and constant danger to be short by marauding armed bands. I can make this guess because you, as a human being, are not entirely different to me, as a human being. It seems such guesses are rather useful, because they can guide policy, like making law against poisoning the land. Is there any way of making more such guesses, can we find some a valid method of doing so?
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You could start by eliminating anyone from the We who thinks that obeying an archaic abstract set of rules is more important than the happiness of the people involved. That would be you IngoB.
I appreciate that this is your opinion. I neither agree with your characterisation of my thinking, nor likely with your choice of moral rules. Now, how can we go beyond pitting opinion against opinion? Is there any way of finding objective truth in the matter of morals?
--------------------
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
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
Ah no no no benighted relativists you've got it ALL wrong.
If those poor gays gave up sinning and living that wrongful lifestyle then they wouldn't have ANY of the problems that it causes. It's not the Church causing them by excluding, discriminating and isolating them, making them doubt their bodies and minds. No. Of course not, the Church is concerned for their souls.
Fucking horseshit.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Ah no no no benighted relativists you've got it ALL wrong.
If those poor gays gave up sinning and living that wrongful lifestyle then they wouldn't have ANY of the problems that it causes. It's not the Church causing them by excluding, discriminating and isolating them, making them doubt their bodies and minds. No. Of course not, the Church is concerned for their souls.
Fucking horseshit.
You've left out the bit where being gay is a cross that must be borne, since everybody has such a cross, so why should gays be exempt? It's sad that they are persecuted and driven to suicide, but the path to heaven is often rocky. The church only has their best interests at heart.
<sarcasm smiley, in case anybody wonders>
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, isn't that interesting? It is almost as if what constitutes human wellbeing is built into us. Do you think a more precise statement of that can be made?
Yes: We are all human. Living as humans and among humans causes us to see and experience human suffering and human thriving, and form views about the types of experiences we regard to be positive and that we would wish on those we love and the types of experience we regard to be negative and that in our less charitable moments we might wish on those we hate.
quote:
I don't know if Positive Psychology can deliver it, since I don't know what that is.
It's a relatively recent branch of psychology which seeks to study what things make humans thrive. One of my best friends just completed a PhD in it, and I've read a number of books and articles on the subject myself.
quote:
Well, I would say that is more a moral principle. When we apply this to concrete cases, we will find certain rules. For example, we will find that killing the innocent does not increase human wellbeing, and so we will conclude that murder is immoral. That's a moral rule which follows from this principle. I'm asking what other rules we can derive, and how we go about doing that.
Okay. There is no particularly special method: As you note, it's pretty self-evident that murder of the innocent is going to be immoral. People are able to quickly reach consensus on most common issues. Some issues are more complex and require scientific data to inform them. eg "What are the effects of the divorce process on the wellbeing of the children involved?" would be an example that science could shed light on.
Divorce is an obvious example in which there are competing pros and cons of various possible choices, which are all going to set up different balances of goods and harms to different parties for different reasons. In such circumstances I don't see any advantage to a 'black and white' morality, and instead I see it as more honest to acknowledge that humans and their interactions are complicated and that in some cases there will be moral grey areas where harms and benefits of different kinds occur simultaneously (ie both "goods" and "evils" occur together). How people choose to resolve balances of competing harms and goods can sometimes be somewhat arbitrary (and it may well not be particularly meaningful to try to ascribe any moral value of 'good' or 'evil' to the overall action as a result, and rather just accept that the action comprised a complex array of different goods and evils).
quote:
I would expect to see very similar findings if we looked at say a group of alcoholics.
Since gay people are often driven to alcoholism as a coping mechanism to deal with societal prejudice, and often suffer the potentially deadly effects of alcoholism accordingly, I too would expect to see a great deal of similarity between the two groups due to their disproportionate overlap.
quote:
The Church has burned people at the stake for being gay? Whom, when and where? For the most part the Inquisition was busy with heresy, not morality.
Valencia 1572 by the Spanish Inquisition. The statistics given in various sources seem to be different, however both the Portuguese and Spanish Inquisitions both got quite interested in sodomy at times, in several decades apparently prosecuting more people for sodomy than for heresy. They apparently prosecuted nearly 1500 people between them, with at least 30 burnt at the stake.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Valencia 1572 by the Spanish Inquisition. The statistics given in various sources seem to be different, however both the Portuguese and Spanish Inquisitions both got quite interested in sodomy at times, in several decades apparently prosecuting more people for sodomy than for heresy. They apparently prosecuted nearly 1500 people between them, with at least 30 burnt at the stake.
I didn't know that. If Wikipedia is to believed, the Spanish Inquisition at least was primarily persecuting homosexual rape and teen/child abuse by adults, to quote from the link you provided: "Nearly all of almost 500 cases of sodomy between persons concerned the relationship between an older man and an adolescent, often by coercion; with only a few cases where the couple were consenting homosexual adults. About 100 of the total involved allegations of child abuse."
As a more general point, there is a reason why these institutions are called Spanish and Portugese, respectively. The Inquisition actually under control by Rome was the Roman Inquisition. The other two were under the control of the respective monarchies. In fact the pope was basically blackmailed to allow the Spanish Inquisition (the Turks were threatening Rome, and the Spanish threatened to withdraw military support), and the monarchy stopped the popes several times from gaining control over it, for example by denying their subjects an appeal to Rome against its judgements. Not that these Inquisitions were entirely independent of the Church, but they were more like Saudi Arabia's "Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" (religious police) than a proper Church institution.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Ingo has admitted he didn't know something! Yeah yeah he deflects and excuses. But lord have mercy slap the hogs go down moses on my Ingo free!
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'll give you a clue, Ingo: any reference to whether something is sinful won't be relevant. Nor will any procreation requirement.
And that this is so can be objectively determined, how? On what grounds can anybody assess this, by what means can we all conclude it?
Ah, objectivity. A dangerous concept if ever there was one.
One of your fundamental problems, Ingo, is that you often base your arguments on an unspoken notion that whatever behaviour makes you happy and satisfied would make everyone else happy and satisfied.
This might be true on some extremely basic level, but when you get to something more specific such as "I am male and am happy and satisfied loving a female and procreating with her, so all males would be happy and satisfied loving a female and procreating with her", you're just flat out wrong. That's actually your subjective happiness.
Finding things out objectively involves gathering evidence and data outside of your own personal experience. Not dismissing the experience of others would be a fine start. People who don't want children, and people who simply don't feel the kind of attraction to the opposite sex that you do.
Your other fundamental problem, of course, is that you're a manipulative little shit who is one of those people who asks questions when you think you already know the answers.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
We need something as objective as Natural Law, which everyone can agree on.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of your fundamental problems, Ingo, is that you often base your arguments on an unspoken notion that whatever behaviour makes you happy and satisfied would make everyone else happy and satisfied.
The question wherein true happiness and satisfaction can be found is a difficult one. But it is not one that needs to concern us here. If we ask instead what people want and wish for, and wherein they find pleasure and attainment (happiness and satisfaction of the moment, if you will), then your statement is quite simply wrong. I do not at all make the assumption that this is the same for everybody. I just happen to also believe that our intellects and wills are weak and confused, and that our impulses and desires are strong and disordered. And yes, I believe that this is so for everybody, though to what extent in what way varies between people. Consequently, we often do not recognise what is good, and where we recognise it we nevertheless do not want it; whereas we often want something that is bad, often enough even if we recognise that it is bad.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your other fundamental problem, of course, is that you're a manipulative little shit who is one of those people who asks questions when you think you already know the answers.
In case it isn't obvious by now, the reason I was switching to question mode was that Starlight was proposing nothing else but natural moral law. However, also rather obviously, his version of the natural moral law does not come to the same conclusion as mine, which likely means that its basic "abstraction mechanisms" are different. I wanted to tease that out before naming the beast, quite simply because otherwise we would just get the usual assortment of vile and stupid commentary from the peanut brain gallery.
And Starlight, unlike you and most people here who have a different opinion, is currently actually talking to me. That's something I appreciate a lot, no matter how much we may differ in opinion.
[ 16. July 2015, 15:44: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Henry VIII, couldn't make Rome submit to his desires, he simply split off the local RC branch and so we now have the Anglicans. were of course fostered by prevailing state law.
I am glad to hear a RC, and a conservative one at that, admit that the RCC is a 'branch' and, by implication,so is the C of E.
That's not RC teaching.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your other fundamental problem, of course, is that you're a manipulative little shit who is one of those people who asks questions when you think you already know the answers.
In case it isn't obvious by now, the reason I was switching to question mode was that Starlight was proposing nothing else but natural moral law.
Of course you were switching. You have spent most of your time twisting and turning in increasingly desperate attempts to show how your interpretation of the RCCs teaching is wholly true.
Are you actually trying to discourage people from following Christ? It certainly looks like it.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand why CB is so interested in discussing a hypothetical case of a no vote that didn't happen.
Because I want to challenge the apparent implication of several posters' views here that some kinds of reasons or arguments ought effectively to diqualify a person's vote for or against a piece of legislation. As I said to Karl:
quote:
[W]hy should religiously informed/motivated reasons be less politically considerable that any other "opinion-based" reasons - whether intimately personal, ideological, or whatever? Should the Irish votes influenced by religiously informed grounds have had their votes counted for less than those who voted on the grounds of a particular "secular" philosophical/ideological opinion? What about those religiously inspired votes which were in favour of gay marriage? What about another issue like immigration: should religiously inspired votes - say, those which may be grounded in a thelogical concept like the inherent equal dignity of those of all nationalities as being brothers and sisters under the fatherhood of God - count for less then too? Should there be a qualifying test for how much your vote should be worth? Because that seems to me to be an implication of what you are arguing.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think perhaps what CB is getting at is that those who worked on the anti-slavery campaigns (in England) took many years to force through changes, with many votes against them. Therefore why should the RCC give up having lost the (temporary) momentum on the SSM question.
Nope. Never so much as crossed my mind.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
My answer to that is that the arch of history is towards freedom and justice.
I admire your touching faith in the Whig view of history. But really, it's a fantasy.
And, by the way, the 1836 Marriage Act did not prevent Roman Catholics from having their marriages recognised by the state, nor did it forbid them to marry in a Catholic ceremony with a Catholic priest: it merely required them to repeat the vows in front of an Anglican priest, which was the legally validating bit. Just like you're not married as far as the French state is concerned util you've been to the mairie, even if you've been "done" in the Church already.
--------------------
"[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 leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Henry VIII, couldn't make Rome submit to his desires, he simply split off the local RC branch and so we now have the Anglicans. were of course fostered by prevailing state law.
I am glad to hear a RC, and a conservative one at that, admit that the RCC is a 'branch' and, by implication,so is the C of E.
That's not RC teaching.
Agreed: indeed, it's no more RC teaching that it is what IngoB actually said.
--------------------
"[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:
I admire your touching faith in the Whig view of history. But really, it's a fantasy.
It is the one shared by many, including MLK, which he apparently got from the unitarians. I happen to like it more than the bunk you spread.
quote:
And, by the way, the 1836 Marriage Act did not prevent Roman Catholics from having their marriages recognised by the state, nor did it forbid them to marry in a Catholic ceremony with a Catholic priest: it merely required them to repeat the vows in front of an Anglican priest, which was the legally validating bit. Just like you're not married as far as the French state is concerned util you've been to the mairie, even if you've been "done" in the Church already.
Wrong.
The Marriage Act of 1836 set up civil marriage. Prior to this, only marriages performed by the Church of England - and strangely the Quakers and Jews - were recognised by the state. The Roman Catholics were only recognised as married if they subsequently were registered by being married by a priest in an Anglican church (I don't know what happened if they tried to be married in a Synagogue or by the Quakers). Until they did that, their marriage simply wasn't marriage, according to the state. It wasn't forbidden, it just wasn't valid. According to contemporary accounts, men were accused of marrying in a Roman Catholic church and then walking away from the marriage without any consequences or recourse to the law, so RCC priests encouraged women to be married by priests of a church they did not recognise in order to get their civil marriage rights.
After this time, the system set up a system of civil registrars who then enabled non-Anglicans to have their marriages registered in religious buildings, and eventually in state buildings.
Of course, if you had bothered to read the wikipedia link I supplied before mouthing off about things you don't know about, you would have already known that without looking like a complete dick.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Since I know it will make you feel all special, mr cheesy, I will admit to an error. How could I not, when you were so gracious about it?
Alas for you, I do know what I'm talking about, even though I did make a silly mistake. What I meant to say was almost precisely as I did before, repeated below with only the bit in bold changed from my original:
quote:
The law of England prior to the 1836 Marriage Act did not prevent Roman Catholics from having their marriages recognised by the state, nor did it forbid them to marry in a Catholic ceremony with a Catholic priest: it merely required them to repeat the vows in front of an Anglican priest, which was the legally validating bit. Just like you're not married as far as the French state is concerned util you've been to the mairie, even if you've been "done" in the Church already.
[ 16. July 2015, 19:11: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
At no point did I say that Roman Catholics could not have their marriages recognised by the state before the 1836 Marriage Act, but very clearly the things they did in a Roman Catholic Church were not "marriage" according to the state.
So the law was changed, because this was manifestly unfair.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The irony being, of course, that all non-Anglicans (except the Quakers and Jews) have only been able to have valid legal marriages since 1836 in England because of the civil marriage law.
Funny that. The "traditional" law was changed to right an injustice and to allow a significant minority to enjoy the full legal benefits of marriage.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Are you actually trying to discourage people from following Christ? It certainly looks like it.
First time this has occurred to you? He has said many times that he is not here to win converts. That he does not care which way they go, is an inference.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The irony being, of course, that all non-Anglicans (except the Quakers and Jews) have only been able to have valid legal marriages since 1836 in England because of the civil marriage law.
Perhaps it would be ironic if it were true. But it's not. As I've just pointed out. They could have their marriages legally validated by the state by repeating their vows in front of one of the state's minsters - a C of E cleric. And that is precisely what they tended to do, often encouraged by their own Catholic priests.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Not only but also:
quote:
The key question is not whether Catholic couples went through an invalid Catholic ceremony of marriage, but whether they also submitted to the legally binding Anglican rites. At first sight the very idea might appear unlikely, onthe grounds that it would be incompatible with one’s status as a Catholic to attend the religious services of the Church of England. But such an approach had papal sanction. Benedict XIV had considered the question of whether Catholics in Protestant countries should submit to legislation requiring them to be married by a minister of the established church, and had held that ‘it was quite legitimate for Catholics to obey the civil law in this matter.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
So let's go back to that, then.
Catholics can have a Catholic ceremony and then, if they feel the need to be legitimate, they go somewhere else and get married.
--------------------
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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Is it not the same way that coming of age works? You can have your bar mitzvah at age 13. You proclaim you are a man. Fine, now you can form part of a minyan. But if you want to vote, or join the army, or buy liquor, you have to wait until you are 18. The religious coming of age is entirely separate from the civil one.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Ingo has admitted he didn't know something! Yeah yeah he deflects and excuses. But lord have mercy slap the hogs go down moses on my Ingo free!
--------------------
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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I appreciate that this is your opinion. I neither agree with your characterisation of my thinking, nor likely with your choice of moral rules. Now, how can we go beyond pitting opinion against opinion? Is there any way of finding objective truth in the matter of morals?
You don't have to agree with my characterization of your thinking. I've watched you sit here for years insisting that same-sex attracted people should just endure restrictions because you have magic rules. Now you want to ask how *WE* find rules for happiness. Are you including those who don't want your rules in the WE?
Why would rules for well being be the same for people with vastly different opinions? Why would insisting on a single set of rules be better than a framework which tolerates a number of different rules? Why should the problem be over constrained by insisting on consistency with theories from another millennia.
People are not going to adopt the opinion of someone who spews a vast quantity of bullshit to claim an "objective truth" and has demonstrated a history of indifference to the injury their opinions have caused.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Perhaps it would be ironic if it were true. But it's not. As I've just pointed out. They could have their marriages legally validated by the state by repeating their vows in front of one of the state's minsters - a C of E cleric. And that is precisely what they tended to do, often encouraged by their own Catholic priests.
Read what I actually wrote, tosspot: marriages conducted in Roman Catholic Churches were not valid under English law. The only valid marriages were those conducted by the Anglicans, Quakers and Jews - so any Roman Catholic who wanted to be recognised by the state as married needed to be remarried by an Anglican priest.
And in fact this is still the case: the only state recognised marriages are those conducted by an Anglican (or Quaker or Jewish) authority or those conducted in front of a Registrar.
Whichever way you slice it, what you do in your church is not legal without the state official being there.
And as you note, Rome has long regarded this as being perfectly acceptable.
So by history and precedence, the State civil marriage does not, actually, have to meet the standards of marriage acceptable to the Roman Catholics and the state does not regard the Roman Catholic rite as valid on its own without the presence of the state official in England and Wales.
So by extension, if the State changes the rules, the only way that Roman Catholic marriage would be diminished would be if the State refused to register the RCC marriages, and we'd go back to a pre-1836 situation.
Very clearly Rome has long been pragmatic on the issue and has accepted the need for civil registration in addition to your own religious services.
So to sum up: prior to 1836, RC marriages were not legally valid, and so pragmatically the church allowed/encouraged the flock to become legally married by having registration via a state official, who also happened to be a religious official. After the 1836 Act, the injustice of this was recognised and the law was changed to allow Roman Catholics - and other religions - to have legal marriages registered by a state official. The state marriage is not Roman Catholic marriage. Since 1836 there have been several other marriage laws enacted that manage state registration, none of which have ever forced the Roman Catholics or any other religion (outwith of the Anglicans, who have less control over who they marry) to marry anyone. Indeed, the system is completely voluntary, the religious groups inform the state authorities that they have someone who wants to be married, not the other way around. Nobody has ever been able to force any of these religious groups to marry anyone, and I know for a fact that some regularly refuse to marry some couples who ask.
Which all just shows your utter two-faced hypocrisy on this point. You take advantage of the civil registration of the scheme but somehow think that gives you some holier-than-thou right to dictate to everyone else how it should be run for non-RCCs.
[ 17. July 2015, 07:17: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am glad to hear a RC, and a conservative one at that, admit that the RCC is a 'branch' and, by implication,so is the C of E. That's not RC teaching.
And that's not what I said either...
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I've watched you sit here for years insisting that same-sex attracted people should just endure restrictions because you have magic rules. Now you want to ask how *WE* find rules for happiness. Are you including those who don't want your rules in the WE?
Obviously. But if we are trying to determine something objective, then what you or indeed I want to be the case is exactly not relevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Why would rules for well being be the same for people with vastly different opinions? Why would insisting on a single set of rules be better than a framework which tolerates a number of different rules? Why should the problem be over constrained by insisting on consistency with theories from another millennia.
Rules apply regardless of opinion. That's pretty much the point of rules. If several rules are tolerated, then either all these rules have a shared core, and that is the actual universal rule (it may be practically useful to work the core out along different lines, as case law, but it is in principle useful to know that core itself). Or this is just an arbitrary collection of rules, which either should be abandoned or allow additions without further ado. One might value rules from the past for various reasons, including simply an appreciation of the past. But for present purposes the question is simply whether these rules are based on an underlying objective truth, in which case they will hold as long as that truth applies, or not, in which case they are merely an arbitrary (if perhaps favoured) choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
People are not going to adopt the opinion of someone who spews a vast quantity of bullshit to claim an "objective truth" and has demonstrated a history of indifference to the injury their opinions have caused.
People do the weirdest things.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But for present purposes the question is simply whether these rules are based on an underlying objective truth, in which case they will hold as long as that truth applies, or not, in which case they are merely an arbitrary (if perhaps favoured) choice.
They were based on a man selecting a woman to bear his children. The man basically owned her and her womb.
This is no longer true.
This is precisely the stuff about the role of women that you didn't want to talk about. The very reason that same-sex marriage is now viable is that women are no longer chattel. Marriage (at least for people who've managed to drag their thoughts into the last 40 years or so instead of holding onto a worldview that basically classified all women as either mothers or whores) is now a partnership between equals. It has changed.
Okay? Can we end the thread now?
[ 17. July 2015, 07:42: 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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: Is there any way of finding objective truth in the matter of morals?
There isn't. That's part of the human condition.
Sure, there are some things that are objectively bad, and they are more or less universally seen as bad across cultures. But when you try to build a complete moral system based on that, you'll run into trouble soon. Worse if you think there is only one way of doing this. Trying to do so, you'll inevitable end up sinning, not in the least against logic. Especially in generalising things that you aren't logically allowed to.
Natural moral law may seem like a brave attempt to do this, but ultimately it just comes down to trying to make nature conform to RC doctrine.
To me personally, the fact that there isn't one moral system that comes from God and that we have to follow, but that instead He has given us some (not unlimited, but some) room to develop these systems for ourselves, is a testimony of the love that God has for us.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
