Catholic Bigotry?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I can accept that the guy disagrees with gay marriage, but calling it immoral is a bit much isn't it? I find it hard to term anything that causes no harm to anyone/thing immoral.

Hmm, I don't think you recognise the simple fact that a God has rules and codes of conduct for people irrespective of how something treats others. If you don't follow those rules, you can be said to be immoral.

If homosexuality is considered an abomination then sleeping with someone, regardless of it being consensual, is wrong and thus immoral.

[HeliX]

I'm afraid I don't define morality by what a book condoning stoning your own children for disobedience declares to be moral or not.

[Evil Goblin]

Waaaait I missed that bit, did EG really imply you can't have objective morality without divine threat?

 

I don't even. Seriously?

What I said was that Divine Law has been a way in which differing moral stances could have their legitimacy either confirmed or denied - it was something seen as above the subjectiveness of human opinion and thus valuable in sorting out matters between differing views on an "objective" basis. I would suggest that such an "objective" basis which could be accepted by everyone, whilst undoubtedly of great value in a society, is most unlikely to be agreed upon and short of a religious revival is unlikely to come about. So, we just have to get used to fighting and arguing with each other about what is right and what is wrong and, hopefully, in the end, a majority view will rule..

[Evil Goblin]

I'm afraid I don't define morality by what a book condoning stoning your own children for disobedience declares to be moral or not.

Fair enough, but as a matter of interest, on what set of tenets do you rely for your moral views?

[HeliX]

I see what you're saying, but morality is not (or shouldn't be) a hard concept to grasp. For the most part, if it harms another being or thing, it's immoral. If it doesn't, it's not immoral. If you follow those guidelines it's difficult to go far wrong.

 

To quote someone a lot smarter than me:

"For me, I am driven by two main philosophies, know more today about the world than I knew yesterday. And lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

[HeliX]

Even if we go with that understanding, "having" does not necessarily imply procreation. It can do in one understanding, but does not have to.

It's arguments like this that keep lawyers wealthy!

 

Ahh semantics. Complicating, well, basically everything, since ancient Greece.

[Chinahand]

Does the linking together of two people's families not constitute founding a family? Does adoption not constitute founding a family?

It depends on what you understand by "founding a family". I would have thought that the obvious inference is that, in the HRA, it means having children.

So infertile couples seeking to "found a family" via adoption are not "really" "founding a family" or "really" getting married under the Universal declaration of human rights!??

 

Sorry EG, but what you find an obvious inference is nothing of the sort.

 

The raising of children does not require you to "have" them biologically, and there are multiple cases where it is being shown that child rearing is not the defining feature of marriage - ask 90 year olds who find love, ask the infertile, ask those who don't want kids, but do want a spouse.

 

Gays can desire a childless family, just as heterosexuals can - but they also can, and do, raise children in a happy and loving family; no matter how much you may wish to deny them that status.

 

Goodness, EG, you don't come over as exactly tolerant you know.

[Evil Goblin]

Even if we go with that understanding, "having" does not necessarily imply procreation. It can do in one understanding, but does not have to.

It's arguments like this that keep lawyers wealthy!

[John Wright]

By adoption, Artificial Insemination (by donor or partner), between a gay male couple and a lesbian couple with shared parenting et etc, not just by a man and woman within or without marriage. Family life is protected, and that clearly includes non nuclear, non child including, families. The drafters of the Universal and European Human Rights Declarations and Conventions were very clever at leaving the wording so non specific to allow for changing times and mores. EG to support your contention it would have had to be man and woman "together"

 

The main thrust of the bishops argument seemed to be about the need for a straight man and woman within marriage to be the only people he can recognise as the people alowed by his church to be involved in conceiving and bringing up a child.

 

There are now so many non standard families, and always have been, it must be a non argument

 

We have had state, ie civil marriage since the 18th Century, even although the state delegates officiating and recording to the church in some circumstances.

 

We now have civil partnerships equivalent to marriage in all but name, originally only in in state or civil venues, now in religious venues if they are happy to oblige (but not compulsory for them, ie they have an opt out) and now the state, which controls marriage, not the church, is saying there is no need for a different name for the two institutions.

 

Confusing the legal staus for the adults with the rights and entitlements of a child to is not a valid argument or stance.

[Evil Goblin]

I see what you're saying, but morality is not (or shouldn't be) a hard concept to grasp. For the most part, if it harms another being or thing, it's immoral. If it doesn't, it's not immoral. If you follow those guidelines it's difficult to go far wrong.

Helix - your tenets can give rise to various quandries. Leaving aside the question of just what "causing harm to another being or thing" can itself mean (pure opinion is going to lead to different answers) how does your view reconcile to killing other animals for food, poisoning ringies, etc., etc.? How about killing or injuring someone or something because it damages your interests e.g. your food supply? How about killing one thing in defence of another. Personal opinions are still going to ensure that, even if averyone were to accept yout tenets, there would be widespread disagreements.

[HeliX]

I see what you're saying, but morality is not (or shouldn't be) a hard concept to grasp. For the most part, if it harms another being or thing, it's immoral. If it doesn't, it's not immoral. If you follow those guidelines it's difficult to go far wrong.

Helix - your tenets can give rise to various quandries. Leaving aside the question of just what "causing harm to another being or thing" can itself mean (pure opinion is going to lead to different answers) how does your view reconcile to killing other animals for food, poisoning ringies, etc., etc.? How about killing or injuring someone or something because it damages your interests e.g. your food supply? How about killing one thing in defence of another. Personal opinions are still going to ensure that, even if averyone were to accept yout tenets, there would be widespread disagreements.

 

Of course, that's why I included the "for the most part" disclaimer!

When harm is being caused whether you act or not (for your example of self defence), the side should be taken dependent on who was acting immorally. i.e. if a murderer breaks into a house, and you cause harm to him to stop him killing someone, you took the side of the person who was behaving morally.

With regards to killing animals for food, it's a tricky one and always will be. Food is necessary for the survival of our species. As such I can abide by using animals for food, however I DON'T agree with some types of food. For example lamb. I would say it's immoral to kill an animal for food before it's had a decent shot at a decent-length life. I would also call using anything smaller than a chicken for food immoral, as I weight the value of the life higher than the amount of food you'd get from it.

As I say, that one is always going to be subjective (even with a divine law).

[Rami]

Killing, theft, dishonesty, malfeasance, etc.. can be accepted as morally dubious without the necessity of tying into, franktly, outdated methods of trying to cope with social circumstances. This is confirmed by the fact that these core moral values are the only true surviving aspects of your religion despite 2000 years of human to human descendancy of the texts and beliefs. In modern times I, as an intelligent and informed person, have no need for the escape of social difficulties that your religion, or any others, provide.

 

In essence all religions come with a lot of excess baggage and regulation that may have been applicable to the social situation of 2 millennia ago but is no longer so. 'Newly' accepted social circumstances such as being gay, remarriage, etc are not well handled by any of the mainstream religions.

 

Divinity is no longer required as a method of convincing the average intelligent citizen. With global communication accessible to all a general consensus is enough (see human rights charter and others) to establish a base moral compass. This was not the case 2 millenia ago and thus I could have accepted the need of a 'divine' assistant in these matters at the time.

[Evil Goblin]

So infertile couples seeking to "found a family" via adoption are not "really" "founding a family" or "really" getting married under the Universal declaration of human rights!??

 

Sorry EG, but what you find an obvious inference is nothing of the sort.

 

The raising of children does not require you to "have" them biologically, and there are multiple cases where it is being shown that child rearing is not the defining feature of marriage - ask 90 year olds who find love, ask the infertile, ask those who don't want kids, but do want a spouse.

 

Gays can desire a childless family, just as heterosexuals can - but they also can, and do, raise children in a happy and loving family; no matter how much you may wish to deny them that status.

 

Goodness, EG, you don't come over as exactly tolerant you know.

I think your posting illustrates the point I made to Helix - without some standard accepted as objective there will always be arguments!

 

In my postings I am not saying what my personal views are at all - I'm just trying to find a rational interpretation of things as they are - perhaps a vain endeavour! Therefore, I deny your accusation that I am intolerant because I haven't actually said what my personal views are so you are judging me without valid evidence.

 

Come on, China - "founding a family" is not the obvious meaning of having children? I think you are twisting things to suit your predelictions. I simply am commenting on what the HRA currently says - if you disgree with it then argue to have it changed, not try to twist meanings unrealistically to argue that what it means what you want it to mean rather than being, in your opinion, inadequate.

[Rami]

In anticipation of some retorts, the Divine aspect was required to enforce the notion that a punishment was applicable for straying off the moral compass. Punishment is now aptly covered by the well establish judicial systems all the way up to the UN courts. In short, a divine aspect is no longer needed for punishment either.

[Chinahand]

EG, I don't need to argue for anything to be changed or redefined - fertility is not the defining characteristic of a family. You do not need to be fertile to have a family.

 

Founding a family can and does involve adoption, it can and does involve a decision to be childless. Childless families are common.

 

I think it is you who are redefining terms, not me. A family does not require people to biologically "have" children - or are you going to argue it does, and hence deny that status to multiple families that exist just on the Isle of Man let alone in the wider "universal" world?

 

You're welcome to try, but don't be surprised if you are on to a losing game - stop hiding behind rationalizing what the Cardinal has said - do you really believe that a couple coming together and adopting children is not founding a family? And does it matter to you whether the family is gay or heterosexual?