Posted: May 22, 2012 7:23 pm
Thomas Eshuis wrote:So you would have a problem with any othe religion being supported by the state?
Yes, I would. But in any case, I highly doubt the First Amendment is going to change anytime soon, so it’s a rather pointless question from the American perspective. The way things stand now, we all agree that we can't have an official religion. But while we have no official religion, voters and politicians are still going to have religious motivations, and while I'll obviously disagree with many of those motivations, I'm not going to blabber about the Establishment Clause whenever someone says something I mislike.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:And this is where you are wrong. You can choose who you marry, as there is no restriction of being in love. You have however no choice whatsoever who you get attracted to or fall in love with.
Maybe so. But there is more to marriage than love.
"First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity."
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Wow, you told someone of for using the word 'fag', what now? Want a medal? Just because you're a mild homophobe, doesn't mean you're justified in being one.
Oh joy, so now I'm only a "mild homophobe". Very comforting.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:No study has been able to show there is a concious choice involved in being gay, therefore to claim that you oppose homosexualit but not gay people is impossible.
But there certainly is a conscious choice in choosing with whom you fornicate, unless you're under severe psychological disturbance.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Ah the old appeal to ficticious tradition fallacy. I was waiting for you to show your true colours.
First of all marriage has been altered many times and has had same-sex version in vairous cultures around the globe, throughout history, so the unchanging inheretence you claim in non-existent, secondly an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.
Pfft it doesn't matter that it's changed its emphasis over the years. Polygamous marriages, child marriages, arranged marriages - all these may be inferior to our modern romantic notions, and some of them were abusive, but they were still marriages. They all had the basic components of a man and a woman. And doubtless many cultures have had odd homosexual customs; I won't deny that. I never claimed the modern movement was the first.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:It isn't. A majority of the abolitionists were Christians true, but the Church wasn't evolved from the start, nor does the Christian involvement in the abolitionist movement take away the fact that up till then the bible had been used to support slavery, not condemn it.
It's not like there was a sudden shift out of nowhere. The Epistle to Philemon shows that freeing slaves was regarded as virtuous from the very beginning. "Thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved...." And going even further back, in the Old Testament, there were grave penalties for stealing people into slavery, along with permission for slaves to free from harsh masters.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Congratulations, you're the first Christian who's admitted that slavery is morally justifiable according to the bible, in my opinion it isn't under any situation, but props to you for admitting it is in Christianity, under certain circumstances.
Aw yay.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:And I am getting tired of this ludicrous canard, legalising same-sex marriage =/= affirming, supporting or promoting same-sex intercourse. You can still be as irrationally opposed as you want to be.
Ah, but same-sex marriage is already perfectly legal. If two men want to live in the same house and call each other "husband", no one is going to arrest them. That's just what heterosexual couples did in the years before government got involved. So I don't want to "ban" same-sex marriage. I just don't think government should waste its time giving unnecessary public approval to it. It seems to me that if homosexuals truly believe their love is just as pure and true and valid as that of their heterosexual brethren, then they shouldn't feel the need to have the state pat them on the head and say "Yes, you really are indeed married; don't listen to those nasty bigots. Have some cookies."
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thereby affirming the Islamic religion.
How is Christianity affirming Muslim marriages affirming Islam, while atheists affirming Muslims marriages is not affirming Islam? It seems a pretty basic truth to me that something can be partially good and yet not totally good. And while there are doubtless some good aspects of homosexual relations, we don't believe that their imitations of marriage are one of them, and therefore we cannot support them.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Except the marriage is performed with Muslim rites and in the name of a supposedly false god, so your cherrypicking doesn't fly.
Allah is not a "false god" according to Christianity, he is simply the name by which Muslims worship the one true God in an imperfect, incomplete, and muddled manner. Now I shall admit that certain other religions do indeed invoke false gods, but their marriage are still just as valid. If you worship idols you are damned regardless of if you marry or not, so Christians gain nothing by opposing idolaters' marriages. And we do gain something by supporting them, because marriage is A Good Thing, all else being equal.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Sorry but you're just not being consistent here.
Blehp. I guess it makes you uncomfortable that Christianity is not so exclusive and bigoted as you'd like to imagine. But we do believe in goodness outside our ranks, sorry to break it to you.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Do define 'traditional' Christianity for us since there are many different version of it.
For the purposes of this discussion I would define "traditional" as those churches which accept as authoritative the Pauline condemnation of sodomy, without going into bizarre convoluted excuses about how it was actually referring to temple prostitutes or child molesters.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
According to your interpetation, several Christian denominations disagree with you.
Do you have any rational arguments to oppose ssm, or is all you have an appeal to faith?
If I'm arguing with fellow Christians, then there's hardly anything wrong with appealing to faith.
CookieJon wrote:It's so simple I'm amazed you're not sure!
The answer is that the Catechism contradicts itself; The Catechism both denounces unjust discrimination AND promotes unjust discrimination (by its validation of homophobic behaviour**).
So, it's now up to you to explain why "validating homophobic behaviour" is not unjust in order to explain the blatant contradiction in the Catechism.
You might be able to do this, so my request for an explanation is entirely earnest. It's quite possible I've simply overlooked an obvious reason why validating homophobic behaviour is actually justified!
If that's the case, you can help me out...
Tell me how justice is served by the Church validating the homophobic behaviour of its adherents by encouraging them to consider gay people as "intrinsically disordered", a "threat to civilisation", "abominations", and "contrary to natural law".
---
** I assume we do actually agree that "intrinsically disordered", "threat to civilisation", "abominations", "contrary to natural law", etc. are objectively negative (the justification of the negativity notwithstanding), and would certainly not only validate existing personal biases, but actually give cause to those who consider the Catholic Church an authoratative organisation to adopt homophobic attitudes, and therefore engage in homophobic behaviour. That seems pretty self-evident to me, although if you disagree, we can discuss that first. AFAICT, we're only quibbling about whether the uncontested encouragment of homophobia is justified or not.
I completely agree that the Catechism's teaching can be and has been used as an excuse for "homophobic behavior". But I fail to see how that is relevant. Someone may believe that in bullying persons perceived as homosexual he is following Catholic teaching, but in actuality he is wrong. Because there is absolutely no reason why marking certain freely chosen erotic acts as immoral has to lead to discrimination.
And anyhow you didn't even quote the Catechism accurately... it never actually says that "gay people" are disordered. It says that certain actions which they have an resistible inclination to commit are disordered. You can certainly argue that's it's cruel to ask them to abandon those acts, but I really wish people could stop confusing the two.