Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2015, 03:55 AM
Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
In response to the thread that PetrovPolak resurrected and shat a steaming pile over a while back. Realized the OP's question would make a good essay for my Political Philosophy course. So I thought I would kill two birds with one stone and do both an essay and a thread post. So here it is, I tried to make it as logical (and boring) as possible, so please attack the logic, so I can refine it.


The Religious Right
Nicholas Smith

The question asked is as follows; Catholics, why do you see it as a moral right to legislate against homosexuality? First, the prudent thing may be to rewrite the question. Not to attempt to place words into the questioner's mouth in order to build a strawman but to better clarify what must be answered in this response. As such, The question may read, why would one who is a practising member of the Catholic Church think that he has a moral right to prevent the legalization of gay marriage? The distinction between the questions is very slight, but in order to create a response which is wholly comprehensive they do have their purpose. The reason for the changes is first of all that there is little in terms of movement towards legislation against those who have a homosexual tendency nor is there a particular movement to criminalize homosexual acts, the current issue of the day is the legalization of gay marriage and so we shall presume, hopefully not falsely, that this was the intended matter of the question. The next order of business will be to describe the subject of the question. This person is a Catholic, thus to simplify we shall presume that this person fully follows the teachings of the Catholic Church and holds her beliefs to be true. Since we are looking into why a Catholic may think he has a right then we shall not attempt to prove conclusively that one does in fact have this right but merely that it would not be illogical for a Catholic to think he has a right given his accepted premises.


With these principles and clarifications in mind, we shall now build the given and accepted premises, which shall be used for this treatise. Primarily we must identify what premises will be useful for our investigation. Since the question revolves around the concept of rights, by which we mean that which a man has, or believes he has, the ability to perform an action without hindrance from another member of his society, we are as such within the realm of political thought, unless I am miss inferring the word “right”, in which case it would be in the realm of Natural Philosophy. Since we are not examining whether or not one has a legal right to the matter, we are not in working with political science. Instead we are dealing with man's moral right which means we are instead in the realm of political philosophy. Since political philosophy pertains to man in society, we shall use the Church's teaching on man to form our premises. As such we shall accept that man has freedom of choice as our starting premise.


If free choice is a property of man, then man must be by nature a creature of action, since the purpose of choice is to choose between two courses of action. As such, we must characterize the actions of man. Man, it would seem, is capable of two actions. These being voluntary and involuntary. Since man has no choice over involuntary actions then we cannot place any moral bearing upon them and as such we shall ignore them. An ant may live in society but it is driven by instinct and as such we cannot judge the moral nature of an ant hill and, therefore, cannot discuss laws and freedom. This leaves us with voluntary actions. A voluntary action is one which is driven by the will and the intellect. The will is fundamental in moving a subject from potentiality to actuality. The intellect is fundamental in order to identify the end. Every voluntary action requires an end since, as St Thomas writes “ if, in a number of causes ordained to one another, the first be removed, the others must, of necessity, be removed also. Now the first of all causes is the final cause”.(ST. I-II Q.1 A.2) Thus we may conclude that every moral action has a final end.


Following upon this, I would like to include a piece by George Mallory, the eminent explorer, on why he was to climb Mount Everest. While other authors may put what is to be said more succinctly and philosophically, I believe the wondrous beauty of the passage to outweigh its negatives and as such included it in full as follows:

The first question which you will ask and which I must try to answer is this, “What is the use of climbing Mount Everest?” and my answer must at once be, “It is no use. There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron. We shall not find a single foot of earth that can be planted with crops to raise food. It is no use.”
So, if you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself, upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to enjoy life. That is what life means and what life is for.”1

To summarize, every action is done with the intended end being happiness, or joy, since every action is done with the intention of fulfilling the will. Joy can be considered as being the euphoria or satisfaction of having one's will fulfilled.
In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, he states that “some pursuits are subordinate to some one capacity; for instance, bridle making and every other science producing equipment for horses are subordinate to horsemanship, while this and every action in warfare are, in turn, subordinate to generalship, and in the same way other pursuits are subordinate to further ones”. (Nichomachaen I.1) Similarly, with joy, some actions are done subordinate to another joy. For example, a man may undergo the pain of surgery in order to enjoy an ultimately happier life despite the pain in the immediate future. As well, a man may enjoy the succulent taste of strawberries but the subordinating end is that of good health achieved from eating right. Now the question must be raised upon whether every action subsides within another, or one end within another? To answer this it is as simple as examining conflicting ends. One must only ask himself which he would prefer. Good health versus honour, knowledge versus relaxation. Essentially we must play a game of “would you rather”. If two ends come into conflict then one must win out. This process will play out until a single end remains. This end will be the final end and all ends subside within it. At this point I shall impose a second premise. Namely, the Catholic understanding of God, specifically the nature derived from the tetragrammaton, YHWH, I Am Who Am. This states that God is the totality of existence and all experience resides within God. Since all experience resides within God then to fully experience God, in so far as man is capable of doing so, is to fulfil one's will to the highest amount, and thus the greatest amount of joy is to be found in the full experience of God, known as the beatific vision. Since the greatest joy is to be found in the beatific vision, it would be logical to choose God as one's final end. Thus for Catholics, the beatific vision is the final end for all actions and any action must necessarily not be in conflict with achieving this end.


Thus we have dealt with man, now it is time to move on to society. Society is itself an act of man. As Pope Leo XIII said, the family is the smallest form of society. (Rerum Novarum 12) In Catholic teaching, a marriage must be free and as such it becomes a voluntary action. Since it is a voluntary action, it should subsist within the final end. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that the primary purpose of marriage is to aid oneself and ones partner in their path to the beatific vision. Similarly, to participate in society is to make a voluntary choice, although it is often a passive choice. There does exist hermits and thus this example demonstrates that man can choose not to live in society, thus the living in society is a passive action of acceptance of ones current situation.


A quick aside, in some cases people are not living in a society by choice. The clearest example of this deviation is children. The answer to this is that children do not have the complete capacity for free choice as an adult would. An infant is entirely dependant upon its mother. The clearest reason for this is that since making a choice requires an end, this requires the intellect in order to divine said end. A child does have an element of reason but it is not fully developed in its early stages. Along with intellect, physical development can also impede the ability for free choice. A man in shackled to a wall cannot choose to run down the street and actualize this act. Thus some people while having the capacity for voluntary action are not able to actualize it due to some either physical or mental retardation. This does not mean that they are not human, since free choice is in the nature of man, as they still have the capacity for voluntary action but they are prevented from actualizing said capacity.


Since a society must be formed out of at least two members and the formation of society is an act of free choice, and as such both members must consent to the formation of the society, then it stands to reason that they are moving towards a common good. Since we understand society to be a free choice, then it must be done towards a final end. Since every action can only have a single final end, therefore any action which does not subside within the final end will therefore be rejected. If two people enter into a society, then the main goal is cooperation. They presume that they may achieve their end better by being in said society through mutual cooperation, otherwise it would be better for them not to have formed the society. If the two members of the society do not share the same end then the society may not retain cooperation, since if a conflict in ends were to arise then presumably either one will win out or the society will break down. It is possible for a society to survive if the members do not share the same final end since some societies have limited ends. A sports team's end is to play a sport, for example, and this end can subside within many final ends, then conflict often times will not arise. However, as a society expands, not necessarily in members but more so in affecting areas of life, then the chance of conflict grows exponentially. A civil society is the second most involved form of natural society as it involves the entirety of ones public life (marriage is the most involved as it covers both one's private and public life). Since a civil society covers such a large segment of one's life then an accepted higher final end is much more important. This final end is known as the common good. Since God is the one true ultimate end, with the understanding that God exists as understood by Catholics, then a society should have as its final end the achievement of the beatific vision for all of its members. Now a society does not need to have as its final end God, but since any action is done best if the final end is realized and the greatest satisfaction is reached when one chooses the best of possible final ends, then it stands to reason that the best society is one in which God is the final end.


If God is the final end of society, then laws should be made which allow man to most effectively achieve Heaven. That which should be prohibited are those actions which lead a man away from God. Regardless of whether or not it is true, the Catholic understanding of homosexual marriage is that it is against God. Thus homosexual marriage should be prohibited in a society which has God as its final end. Marriage Ceremony is a public declaration, since there is nothing inherent to the ceremony beyond announcing to those around that a marriage has taken place. A marriage is a natural institution in which two people decide to enter into a society together. Thus a couple could be married without ever having a ceremony. Since the ceremony and its documentation is meant to publicly declare that this society exists, and the purview of a state society is the management of public life, then it would be the responsibility of the government as to whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Thus any Catholic should feel that he has the moral responsibility to legislate against homosexual marriage since he has a moral right to ensure that the state has what is best for the society in which he lives as a member of said society since he is culpable for the actions in which the society makes because he has freely joined the society and agreed to its end. Thus we have logically proven that a catholic would feel the moral right to legislate against homosexual marriage. Q.E.D.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 04:09 AM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
Yup. They feel they have that right.

Fortunately they no longer have the power to impose it.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
11-04-2015, 04:27 AM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
You have made a couple of logical errors (and some spelling and grammar errors, too).

"If two people enter into a society, then the main goal is cooperation."

No, the main goal is still the happiness of the individual; cooperation is only the means to that end.

But the big one is that you are erroneously injecting a Catholic purpose or goal into a civil society - a society defined by a secular document.

This is not a theocracy; your metaphysics are not applicable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
11-04-2015, 05:05 AM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
I really don't understand the religious position. It seems to rely entirely on complete ignorance of what homosexuality is. "Stop being gay! It's wrong!"

If, however, they are just against people actually having sex with those of the same gender, then that is entirely different. Two gay men may get married, spend their life together and never have sex. Is this OK with the church? It's no business of theirs whether they do have sex or not, so why discriminate based on the assumption that they have had or will have sex?

I wish you well for your paper, this is an issue that needs thumping on until it's sorted out.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(11-04-2015 04:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  You have made a couple of logical errors (and some spelling and grammar errors, too).

"If two people enter into a society, then the main goal is cooperation."

No, the main goal is still the happiness of the individual; cooperation is only the means to that end.

But the big one is that you are erroneously injecting a Catholic purpose or goal into a civil society - a society defined by a secular document.

This is not a theocracy; your metaphysics are not applicable.

First of all sorry for resurrecting a dead thread. but I'm christian so we're all about resurrection. Secondly, thank you for pointing out the logical error I made, I made a correction on my final draft. And finally on to a debate;

You state that I am erroneously injecting a Catholic purpose or goal into a civil society - a society defined by a secular document. Before we begin I want to clarify. When you say a society defined by a secular document do you mean a) the constitutions of all civil societies are by nature secular. b) The united states has a Constitution which has a seperation of Church and State clause.

If the case is A, then I want to ask why it is that you say that a constitution must be secular. If it is B, then I'm sorry for the confusion. I am not from the US and so I did not have that document in mind. In Canada, we do in fact live in a theocracy. God is mentioned in our charter and our head of state is the head of the Church of England. The question then is would you say to an Atheist that they have no right to impose laws contrary to the the faith of the Theocracy in which they reside?

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(11-04-2015 05:05 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I really don't understand the religious position. It seems to rely entirely on complete ignorance of what homosexuality is. "Stop being gay! It's wrong!"

If, however, they are just against people actually having sex with those of the same gender, then that is entirely different. Two gay men may get married, spend their life together and never have sex. Is this OK with the church? It's no business of theirs whether they do have sex or not, so why discriminate based on the assumption that they have had or will have sex?

I wish you well for your paper, this is an issue that needs thumping on until it's sorted out.

The Catholic position is that Homosexuality is a disorder which is of no fault of the person. Only homosexual sex is considered a sin. There actually used to be a ceremony which was similar to what you described. There was a ceremony called adelphopoiesis which means brother-making. These unions were regarded as being non-sexual, at least in theory. It would be similar to the old traditions of blood-brothers.
The reason why the church is against marriage is that the secular purpose of marriage is to have kids and start a family. Considering that, except in odd circumstances, a marriage is only considered valid in the Catholic church until it is consummated, sex then is a fundamental part of marriage. While the church could theoretically support same-sex unions, the support of same sex marriage is definitely out.

I would also like to point out that technically it is the church's buisness to some degree. While it is true that your specific sexual life is not for the church to know, the principle is under the church's purview. Since Religion covers the totality of one's life, and it is the church's role to teach religion, thus the principles for all life are under the church's jurisdiction.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2015 04:47 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(11-04-2015 03:55 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  In response to the thread that PetrovPolak resurrected and shat a steaming pile over a while back. Realized the OP's question would make a good essay for my Political Philosophy course. So I thought I would kill two birds with one stone and do both an essay and a thread post. So here it is, I tried to make it as logical (and boring) as possible, so please attack the logic, so I can refine it.


The Religious Right
Nicholas Smith

The question asked is as follows; Catholics, why do you see it as a moral right to legislate against homosexuality? First, the prudent thing may be to rewrite the question. Not to attempt to place words into the questioner's mouth in order to build a strawman but to better clarify what must be answered in this response. As such, The question may read, why would one who is a practising member of the Catholic Church think that he has a moral right to prevent the legalization of gay marriage? The distinction between the questions is very slight, but in order to create a response which is wholly comprehensive they do have their purpose. The reason for the changes is first of all that there is little in terms of movement towards legislation against those who have a homosexual tendency nor is there a particular movement to criminalize homosexual acts, the current issue of the day is the legalization of gay marriage and so we shall presume, hopefully not falsely, that this was the intended matter of the question. The next order of business will be to describe the subject of the question. This person is a Catholic, thus to simplify we shall presume that this person fully follows the teachings of the Catholic Church and holds her beliefs to be true. Since we are looking into why a Catholic may think he has a right then we shall not attempt to prove conclusively that one does in fact have this right but merely that it would not be illogical for a Catholic to think he has a right given his accepted premises.


With these principles and clarifications in mind, we shall now build the given and accepted premises, which shall be used for this treatise. Primarily we must identify what premises will be useful for our investigation. Since the question revolves around the concept of rights, by which we mean that which a man has, or believes he has, the ability to perform an action without hindrance from another member of his society, we are as such within the realm of political thought, unless I am miss inferring the word “right”, in which case it would be in the realm of Natural Philosophy. Since we are not examining whether or not one has a legal right to the matter, we are not in working with political science. Instead we are dealing with man's moral right which means we are instead in the realm of political philosophy. Since political philosophy pertains to man in society, we shall use the Church's teaching on man to form our premises. As such we shall accept that man has freedom of choice as our starting premise.


If free choice is a property of man, then man must be by nature a creature of action, since the purpose of choice is to choose between two courses of action. As such, we must characterize the actions of man. Man, it would seem, is capable of two actions. These being voluntary and involuntary. Since man has no choice over involuntary actions then we cannot place any moral bearing upon them and as such we shall ignore them. An ant may live in society but it is driven by instinct and as such we cannot judge the moral nature of an ant hill and, therefore, cannot discuss laws and freedom. This leaves us with voluntary actions. A voluntary action is one which is driven by the will and the intellect. The will is fundamental in moving a subject from potentiality to actuality. The intellect is fundamental in order to identify the end. Every voluntary action requires an end since, as St Thomas writes “ if, in a number of causes ordained to one another, the first be removed, the others must, of necessity, be removed also. Now the first of all causes is the final cause”.(ST. I-II Q.1 A.2) Thus we may conclude that every moral action has a final end.


Following upon this, I would like to include a piece by George Mallory, the eminent explorer, on why he was to climb Mount Everest. While other authors may put what is to be said more succinctly and philosophically, I believe the wondrous beauty of the passage to outweigh its negatives and as such included it in full as follows:

The first question which you will ask and which I must try to answer is this, “What is the use of climbing Mount Everest?” and my answer must at once be, “It is no use. There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron. We shall not find a single foot of earth that can be planted with crops to raise food. It is no use.”
So, if you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself, upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to enjoy life. That is what life means and what life is for.”1

To summarize, every action is done with the intended end being happiness, or joy, since every action is done with the intention of fulfilling the will. Joy can be considered as being the euphoria or satisfaction of having one's will fulfilled.
In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, he states that “some pursuits are subordinate to some one capacity; for instance, bridle making and every other science producing equipment for horses are subordinate to horsemanship, while this and every action in warfare are, in turn, subordinate to generalship, and in the same way other pursuits are subordinate to further ones”. (Nichomachaen I.1) Similarly, with joy, some actions are done subordinate to another joy. For example, a man may undergo the pain of surgery in order to enjoy an ultimately happier life despite the pain in the immediate future. As well, a man may enjoy the succulent taste of strawberries but the subordinating end is that of good health achieved from eating right. Now the question must be raised upon whether every action subsides within another, or one end within another? To answer this it is as simple as examining conflicting ends. One must only ask himself which he would prefer. Good health versus honour, knowledge versus relaxation. Essentially we must play a game of “would you rather”. If two ends come into conflict then one must win out. This process will play out until a single end remains. This end will be the final end and all ends subside within it. At this point I shall impose a second premise. Namely, the Catholic understanding of God, specifically the nature derived from the tetragrammaton, YHWH, I Am Who Am. This states that God is the totality of existence and all experience resides within God. Since all experience resides within God then to fully experience God, in so far as man is capable of doing so, is to fulfil one's will to the highest amount, and thus the greatest amount of joy is to be found in the full experience of God, known as the beatific vision. Since the greatest joy is to be found in the beatific vision, it would be logical to choose God as one's final end. Thus for Catholics, the beatific vision is the final end for all actions and any action must necessarily not be in conflict with achieving this end.


Thus we have dealt with man, now it is time to move on to society. Society is itself an act of man. As Pope Leo XIII said, the family is the smallest form of society. (Rerum Novarum 12) In Catholic teaching, a marriage must be free and as such it becomes a voluntary action. Since it is a voluntary action, it should subsist within the final end. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that the primary purpose of marriage is to aid oneself and ones partner in their path to the beatific vision. Similarly, to participate in society is to make a voluntary choice, although it is often a passive choice. There does exist hermits and thus this example demonstrates that man can choose not to live in society, thus the living in society is a passive action of acceptance of ones current situation.


A quick aside, in some cases people are not living in a society by choice. The clearest example of this deviation is children. The answer to this is that children do not have the complete capacity for free choice as an adult would. An infant is entirely dependant upon its mother. The clearest reason for this is that since making a choice requires an end, this requires the intellect in order to divine said end. A child does have an element of reason but it is not fully developed in its early stages. Along with intellect, physical development can also impede the ability for free choice. A man in shackled to a wall cannot choose to run down the street and actualize this act. Thus some people while having the capacity for voluntary action are not able to actualize it due to some either physical or mental retardation. This does not mean that they are not human, since free choice is in the nature of man, as they still have the capacity for voluntary action but they are prevented from actualizing said capacity.


Since a society must be formed out of at least two members and the formation of society is an act of free choice, and as such both members must consent to the formation of the society, then it stands to reason that they are moving towards a common good. Since we understand society to be a free choice, then it must be done towards a final end. Since every action can only have a single final end, therefore any action which does not subside within the final end will therefore be rejected. If two people enter into a society, then the main goal is cooperation. They presume that they may achieve their end better by being in said society through mutual cooperation, otherwise it would be better for them not to have formed the society. If the two members of the society do not share the same end then the society may not retain cooperation, since if a conflict in ends were to arise then presumably either one will win out or the society will break down. It is possible for a society to survive if the members do not share the same final end since some societies have limited ends. A sports team's end is to play a sport, for example, and this end can subside within many final ends, then conflict often times will not arise. However, as a society expands, not necessarily in members but more so in affecting areas of life, then the chance of conflict grows exponentially. A civil society is the second most involved form of natural society as it involves the entirety of ones public life (marriage is the most involved as it covers both one's private and public life). Since a civil society covers such a large segment of one's life then an accepted higher final end is much more important. This final end is known as the common good. Since God is the one true ultimate end, with the understanding that God exists as understood by Catholics, then a society should have as its final end the achievement of the beatific vision for all of its members. Now a society does not need to have as its final end God, but since any action is done best if the final end is realized and the greatest satisfaction is reached when one chooses the best of possible final ends, then it stands to reason that the best society is one in which God is the final end.


If God is the final end of society, then laws should be made which allow man to most effectively achieve Heaven. That which should be prohibited are those actions which lead a man away from God. Regardless of whether or not it is true, the Catholic understanding of homosexual marriage is that it is against God. Thus homosexual marriage should be prohibited in a society which has God as its final end. Marriage Ceremony is a public declaration, since there is nothing inherent to the ceremony beyond announcing to those around that a marriage has taken place. A marriage is a natural institution in which two people decide to enter into a society together. Thus a couple could be married without ever having a ceremony. Since the ceremony and its documentation is meant to publicly declare that this society exists, and the purview of a state society is the management of public life, then it would be the responsibility of the government as to whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Thus any Catholic should feel that he has the moral responsibility to legislate against homosexual marriage since he has a moral right to ensure that the state has what is best for the society in which he lives as a member of said society since he is culpable for the actions in which the society makes because he has freely joined the society and agreed to its end. Thus we have logically proven that a catholic would feel the moral right to legislate against homosexual marriage. Q.E.D.


All totally and completely irrelevant. Human rights arise by virtue of a human being a human. The basis of law in a secular society can NO LONGER be based on ANYTHING that is related to the gods. I thought there was supposed to be some "logic" in it ? No "maybe. Just a "no".

Your paper is worthy of the thinking of about an 8th Grader, (or less). I hope your parents are pleased they wasted all that money on your indoctrination. The fact that that could pass at your place without you being told to do it TOTALLY over, proves my contention. No competition, and you're not being g taught to think critically. It's very sad someone writing that could actually be a year or two away from a professional school. OMG.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 04:31 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 04:15 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The reason why the church is against marriage is that the secular purpose of marriage is to have kids and start a family.

a. the church has no business defining or controlling the secular purpose of anything
b. the purpose of marriage is whatever the individuals involved want it to be

Quote:I would also like to point out that technically it is the church's buisness to some degree. While it is true that your specific sexual life is not for the church to know, the principle is under the church's purview. Since Religion covers the totality of one's life, and it is the church's role to teach religion, thus the principles for all life are under the church's jurisdiction.

That is a prime reason why the church needs to be done away with. No institution covers the totality of anybody's life and them claiming to do that is one of the things that is most disgusting about them.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
02-06-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
Tarzan/
Child bearing/ rearing is in no way obligatory, and banned contraception in third word Catholic countries can cause great suffering in many ways.

What people engage in sexually in their bedrooms should not inhibit any of the legal obligations and freedoms enjoyed by heterosexual or homosexual couples.

Any legal difficulties arising from gay marriage, in particularly issues re parenting, can be dealt equally from the point law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 05:36 PM (This post was last modified: 02-06-2015 05:43 PM by TarzanSmith.)
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 04:31 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 04:15 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The reason why the church is against marriage is that the secular purpose of marriage is to have kids and start a family.

a. the church has no business defining or controlling the secular purpose of anything
b. the purpose of marriage is whatever the individuals involved want it to be

Quote:I would also like to point out that technically it is the church's buisness to some degree. While it is true that your specific sexual life is not for the church to know, the principle is under the church's purview. Since Religion covers the totality of one's life, and it is the church's role to teach religion, thus the principles for all life are under the church's jurisdiction.

That is a prime reason why the church needs to be done away with. No institution covers the totality of anybody's life and them claiming to do that is one of the things that is most disgusting about them.

Sorry, I should have put natural not secular. The natural purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for children as well as to aid each other in survival. Now, since we are not purely instinctual, we are also able to set higher ends for our actions, hence why in Catholicism, the purpose of marriage is to aid the other in getting to heaven, while someone could posit that a marriage has a different end, if it is non pro-creative then it is not with human nature and if it is not ordered to God then it is inefficient. At least from a catholic perspective.

Also, why do you say it is impossible for an institution to cover ones entire life. Since faith and morals must invariably cover all of one's actions and thoughts, then any institution which has the role of teaching on faith and morals must logically cover all of one's actions and thoughts.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: