Chinahand Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Evil Goblin - you can cleave to Totalitarians as much as you like, I think the question is whether you really think people's moral lot is now better than the 17th century or not? I, personally, think the Enlightenment has done alot of good, I'm not interested in perfection - an unachievable ideal and I am highly sceptical of Rami's extended universalism - but the Enlightenment has severely limited the absolutists - most of whom encouraged an "abusive exploitation of the human religious sentiment" - and I think you can include the Nazis and Stalin in that. The Enlightenment stands in opposition to absolutism, and I don't think its best proponents replaced God with Man. Rather they accepted the difficult reality that we do not know what is for the best and hence we must grope for it aware that unintended consequences will haunt our every attemtped good deed. The Cardinal is a God knows best - and I'll interpret it for you - absolutist. The modern world is far more tolerant of pluralism - with a strong aspiration to reduce violence and appeals of God on my side. I think that is genuine moral progress - EG you seem to continually disagree seeing no sign that the world is getting better at solving its problems - it is in no way perfect, but to say its no better than in pre-Enlightenment times seems to me a bit blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rami Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Heh, it seems like we agree Chinahand, except perhaps on where we're going but that's surely allowed. I hope we reach a shared future, it'd be a darn shame to revert to a group of isolationist nations or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Welcome Rami - hope the number of your posts rapidly grows from their current 5! No idea if you are a long time lurker, a reincarnation, or are totally new to our community - its a bit rumbustuous, has a large and occassionally snort-out-loud-funny peanut gallery and gets wildly side tracked, but overall is fun! Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Civil partnerships are fine but marriage is between a man and a woman for the procreation of children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 hissingsid, that may be what ideal Christian religious marriage is in the Catholic Church, but it is not what civil marriage is, nor religious marriage in many other denominations. it isn't even practically the case for catholics. What is catholic marriage for if one or both partners is not able to have children, they are too old, impotent or barren? It can never be anything other than an ideal. So if the state wants to allow civil marriage between persons of the same sex and even to allow religious marriage (with an opt out for those denominations that don't want to officiate) why should teh catholic church be allowed to try and veto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Civil partnerships are fine but marriage is between a man and a woman for the procreation of children. I've had both aunts and uncles remarry after their respective spouses died - nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Civil partnerships are fine but marriage is between a man and a woman for the procreation of children. That might be the origin of marriage. And I would agree that marriage is and has always been about a man and a woman. It is one of the cornerstones of heterosexual identity. You're not wrong about saying that. But it is a question of what sort of arrangement can be had and created whereby gay people can enjoy the same rights. The route that has been sought and which has directed (due to heterosexual cultural dominance) is a route whereby gay people want marriage (and weddings) as straight people have it and whereby straight people understand any similar arrangement in respect of the law as cultural the same as what they have. I don't really know how things will transpire in terms of religious gay marriages. I can't imagine many churches being willing to bless them. Only the most 'liberal' would do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 hissingsid, that may be what ideal Christian religious marriage is in the Catholic Church, but it is not what civil marriage is, nor religious marriage in many other denominations. Isn't that the point though John. The Cardinal is commenting from the perspecive of his specific religious beliefs and the teachings of a Church he belongs to. Tolerant people may feel that his comments lack relevence to them but will not object to him having a point of view that differs from their own. Intolerant people will object to him speaking his mind. At the end of the day the decision will be a political one that is then, in the UK, within the democratic sphere of the voting population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 You think the voters will make a decision on the matter? I don't think so. It will simply be a matter decided by the Tory or Labour governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 You think the voters will make a decision on the matter? I don't think so. It will simply be a matter decided by the Tory or Labour governments. But who decides whether there is a Tory or a Labour government in power? And in any case if we live in a tolerant society the Catholic Church and its representatives should be allowed to comment on and to practice what they believe in. Anything less makes us intolerant. Where do you draw the line in condemnation? A lot of us do not like hypocrisy - but we have to be careful that we don't end up also as hypocrites and bigots who place our own opinions in a position of right whilst saying others are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 The public decide which government in power. All I am saying is that it is a different thing entirely as to whether the public have the ability to make a decisions as to how things should be. I mean, in practice how would a voter convey their a singular opinion on such a matter? And I absolutely agree. I believe in free speech. Yes, the people should be condemned for what they say when it is disagreeable but they shouldn't be silenced. But it is about an argument over what is right and what is wrong. I see the Catholic position as being completely wrong in so far as what they believe about marriage and what should and shouldn't happen. Yet I recognise why they have that opinion and think little more can be expected of catholics. I am not sure whether you are saying that there might be hypocrisy that designating what they are saying as wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Civil partnerships are fine but marriage is between a man and a woman for the procreation of children. Why? This is the bit of the anti-gay marriage arguement I don't get. People make the statement and don't expand. They might as well add "nuff said" or "need I say more". Well, if you want to impose or maintain a restriction on people then you do need to say more than a simple statement of belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 You think the voters will make a decision on the matter? I don't think so. It will simply be a matter decided by the Tory or Labour governments. But who decides whether there is a Tory or a Labour government in power? Nick 'Turncoat' Clegg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 manshimajin - To accuse anyone who might point out the huge intolerance of the Catholic Church as being intolerant themselves (in some apparent of defence of its bigotry) seems ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 And in any case if we live in a tolerant society the Catholic Church and its representatives should be allowed to comment on and to practice what they believe in. Anything less makes us intolerant. Where do you draw the line in condemnation? A lot of us do not like hypocrisy - but we have to be careful that we don't end up also as hypocrites and bigots who place our own opinions in a position of right whilst saying others are wrong. Manshimajin, I am not sure what to say about this - I totally agree the Catholic Church can say whatever it likes. But look at the contrast - gay marriage is about two people meeting and committing to each other; its about love and about supporting each other for the long term with legal commitments and shared property rights. And how does this Catholic Cardinal wish to describe this - as a grotesque subversion, degenerate and immoral, and for the state to recognize these relationships as being equivilent to it making legislation on slavery*. In ignorance of the ubiquity of homosexuality within the natural world the Cardinal calls it unnatural. He brings up Universal Human Rights - but Catholic Dogma is in direct contradiction of the very Article he is using to make his argument as it prohibits the dissolution of a failed marriage. I can see a pretty clear contrast here and the hypocrisy of it is pretty incredible. No doubt there will be dishonesty, breakdown, distrust, and upset within homosexual relationships, just as there is in heterosexual ones. But also there will be commitment, love, support and stability. The only reason for his discrimatory atttitude is his insistence that God tells him it is wrong - well his God said slavery was right, his religion encouraged and profited from it, and published "infallable" Bulls supporting it. His God and Church can clearly be wrong. I hope that gives the Cardinal pause before he so sanctimoniously attacks people who just wish to be with the person they love. *Please note the irony - the Catholic Church knows all about legislating about slaves: Pope Nicholas V happily condemmed people to perpetual slavery while Pope Paul III "declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.