New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[Perigrina]

I'm not too hung up on the name. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

But I do recognise that the term "marriage" does not beckon authority from any particular religion and doesn't have to have any religious underpinnings.

Secular marriage is a secular agreement (contract) between people and with legal recognition from the government.
I'm fine with the Catholic church refusing to perform gay marriage ceremonies. I'm not fine with Catholic people trying to make secular gay marriages against the law.

I am confused as to why a person might refuse to sell cakes or flowers to a person whom wants to buy them. Selling a cake is selling a cake, it's not a sponsorship or endorsement for any function that the cake is consumed within.

 

Catholics believe that marriage comes from the nature of human beings, not from the authority of the Church.  Natural marriage occurs regardless of the religion of the people involved.  Marriage between baptized persons is both natural and sacramental and has religious elements (for example, it is governed by canon law.)

 

Natural marriage must be true to the nature of human beings.  The state does not have the authority to say that natural marriage is something other than it is.  I suppose the state can make laws about contracts for people who live together that involve taxes, inheritances, etc., but these cannot be marriages if they are not natural marriages.  

 

In a democracy people vote according to their beliefs and try to convince others to agree with them.  Do you think that Catholics should be excluded from the democratic process because we disagree with you about same-sex marriage?

 

I have already twice posted the link to a good article on Catholic teaching on cooperation with evil.  That explains the moral principles which could lead a Catholic to conclude that he does not want to provide services for an event  which he believes to be immoral.  It is pretty long and complicated and I am not going to be able to explain it as well as the article did.  Please read the article.  If you still have questions after that, perhaps I could answer them.

[stevil]

Natural marriage must be true to the nature of human beings.

Marriage is a human made tradition, there is nothing natural about it, it doesn't necessarily have any truth about it.
Without the customary rituals of marriage, without wedding rings, without wedding cake, some people will still hook up and some will have children. Some people will have casual sex and some people will still have sexual relationships with multiple partners, people will still form and break sexual relationships. All these activities are a natural part of human life.

The state does not have the authority to say that natural marriage is something other than it is.

The state doesn't even attempt to define natural marriage. What the state does is defines legal marriage and provides some legalities in terms of legal marriage.

In a democracy people vote according to their beliefs and try to convince others to agree with them.  Do you think that Catholics should be excluded from the democratic process because we disagree with you about same-sex marriage?

I personally think people should be concerned about their own life rather than the lives of others.
If I don't like brussel sprouts I don't then make it illegal for others.
It is not my place to judge others, it is not my place to force any moral standard onto others. I do not support a majority rules system where a vote by the majority can be used to oppress the minorities.

I have already twice posted the link to a good article on Catholic teaching on cooperation with evil.  That explains the moral principles which could lead a Catholic to conclude that he does not want to provide services for an event  which he believes to be immoral.  It is pretty long and complicated and I am not going to be able to explain it as well as the article did.  Please read the article.  If you still have questions after that, perhaps I could answer them.

I will endevour to read the link, but I assume you have thoughts of your own and are capable of deciding for yourself whether selling a cake is evil depending on whom buys the cake. Is the company that sold the dishwashing liquid also morally responsible given that their liquid was used to wash the dishes that were dirtied at a gay wedding?

[Perigrina]

However, polygyny or polygamy trumps monogamy if we're looking at the numbers, esp if we consider pre-Christian times. I would lean to "one man and one woman" being a revealed truth instead of natural law.

 

Natural law cannot be deduced from what happens in the majority of cases.  It is deduced from basic principles. Because reason is clouded, people will not always figure out what is right.  

 

The Church considers monogamy as a feature of natural marriage, but polygamy is something that God has permitted in the past as a concession to human weakness.  The encyclical of Leo XIII Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae explains the relationship between natural marriage and sacramental marriage.  It is a good resource for this topic:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

[Perigrina]

Marriage is a human made tradition, there is nothing natural about it, it doesn't necessarily have any truth about it.
Without the customary rituals of marriage, without wedding rings, without wedding cake, some people will still hook up and some will have children. Some people will have casual sex and some people will still have sexual relationships with multiple partners, people will still form and break sexual relationships. All these activities are a natural part of human life.

 

Marriage customs vary from culture to culture but the basic concept of marriage is practically universal. 

 

 

The state doesn't even attempt to define natural marriage. What the state does is defines legal marriage and provides some legalities in terms of legal marriage.

I personally think people should be concerned about their own life rather than the lives of others.
If I don't like brussel sprouts I don't then make it illegal for others.
It is not my place to judge others, it is not my place to force any moral standard onto others. I do not support a majority rules system where a vote by the majority can be used to oppress the minorities.

I will endevour to read the link, but I assume you have thoughts of your own and are capable of deciding for yourself whether selling a cake is evil depending on whom buys the cake. Is the company that sold the dishwashing liquid also morally responsible given that their liquid was used to wash the dishes that were dirtied at a gay wedding?

 

You think that the government has a right to redefine marriage but it does not have the right to decide issues by democratic vote?  How very odd.

 

My thoughts regarding to whom I would sell cake are based on the Catholic principles of morality described in the article.  I do not think it is possible to understand my thoughts without understanding the principles.  

Edited June 22, 2014 by Perigrina

[stevil]

Marriage customs vary from culture to culture but the basic concept of marriage is practically universal.

The concept of family is universal (when it entails children), of course it is hard o make babies without at least one man and at least one woman.
I can see why society leaders may encourage both parents to stick around and take care of the dependent children, since human children are very dependent, and remain so for a great amount of time.
But not all families have children and not all parents are parents to children belonging to the same mother or same family.
I am not convinced that humans are monogamous in nature.
 
 

You think that the government has a right to redefine marriage but it does not have the right to decide issues by democratic vote?  How very odd.

I think the role of government is to intervene only when the safety and stability of society is at stake. I don't think it is governments role to force people to a moral standard.
 

My thoughts regarding to whom I would sell cake are based on the Catholic principles of morality described in the article.  I do not think it is possible to understand my thoughts without understanding the principles.

I've read the article.
I didn't see anywhere where it stated that one has a responsibility with regards to whom they sell a cake to. It had concerns regarding medicine, but cake is not medicine.

[Perigrina]

 I think the role of government is to intervene only when the safety and stability of society is at stake. I don't think it is governments role to force people to a moral standard.

 

So you agree with me that the government should not be forcing people with moral objections to same-sex weddings to provide services for them?

 

 

 

 

I've read the article.
I didn't see anywhere where it stated that one has a responsibility with regards to whom they sell a cake to. It had concerns regarding medicine, but cake is not medicine.

 

The article explained the general principles which Catholics then apply to specific situations.  

[stevil]

So you agree with me that the government should not be forcing people with moral objections to same-sex weddings to provide services for them?

I don't think it adds value for a government to force a wicken club to perform their club's rituals in a certain way and I don't think it adds value for a government to force a catholic church to perform their club's rituals in a certain way.

But I do have concerns regarding discrimination.
If a taxi driver refuses to sell travel services to Blacks, or to non Christians or to gays etc then this may cause rifts and conflict within society, especially if you have a large organisation and the members are being told by their leaders to refuse provision of publicly available services to a particular minority group.

[Perigrina]

I don't think it adds value for a government to force a wicken club to perform their club's rituals in a certain way and I don't think it adds value for a government to force a catholic church to perform their club's rituals in a certain way.

But I do have concerns regarding discrimination.
If a taxi driver refuses to sell travel services to Blacks, or to non Christians or to gays etc then this may cause rifts and conflict within society, especially if you have a large organisation and the members are being told by their leaders to refuse provision of publicly available services to a particular minority group.

 

I am not proposing denying services to any groups and I do not see how the Catholic principles on cooperation with evil would lead people to deny services to any of the groups you mention, not simply for being members of those groups.  These principle should lead people to deny goods and services which would support immoral actions or ideologies.  One does not cater the NAMBLA anniversary luncheon.  One does not sell monogrammed stationery for the Planned Parenthood AGM.   One does not sell balloons to be carried in the Gay Pride Parade. 

[stevil]

One does not sell balloons to be carried in the Gay Pride Parade.

As I understand it the Catholic church is against gay weddings.

Are you also telling me that the Catholic church is against gay people having a parade?

If your stationary is monogrammed and you find out (after the fact) that your stationary was present at a Planned Parenthood AGM do you then feel that you have done some wrong doing?

Do you feel the need to write up a document and get customers to sign it, so that the customers agree not to use stationary purchased from you for purposes linked to events supporting activities that you personally feel are immoral?

I mean, Lets say that you own a fabric making company. A very successful fabric making company. It is almost guaranteed that some of your fabric is going to attend some functions that you disagree with. Maybe fabric will be made into a dress for the mother of a gay bride to wear at the wedding. Maybe your fabric will be used to make up a gay pride costume. Maybe your fabric will be made into bed sheets that gay people will make love on.

Does this mean you have to refrain from making fabric because you cannot guarantee that it won't be present at "immoral" occasions?

[Credo in Deum]

As I understand it the Catholic church is against gay weddings.

Are you also telling me that the Catholic church is against gay people having a parade?

If your stationary is monogrammed and you find out (after the fact) that your stationary was present at a Planned Parenthood AGM do you then feel that you have done some wrong doing?

Do you feel the need to write up a document and get customers to sign it, so that the customers agree not to use stationary purchased from you for purposes linked to events supporting activities that you personally feel are immoral?

I mean, Lets say that you own a fabric making company. A very successful fabric making company. It is almost guaranteed that some of your fabric is going to attend some functions that you disagree with. Maybe fabric will be made into a dress for the mother of a gay bride to wear at the wedding. Maybe your fabric will be used to make up a gay pride costume. Maybe your fabric will be made into bed sheets that gay people will make love on.

Does this mean you have to refrain from making fabric because you cannot guarantee that it won't be present at "immoral" occasions?

You are misunderstanding the issue. A Catholic is not culpable for supporting sin if they do knot know what their goods and services will be used for. If a Catholic receives the knowledge that their goods and services will be used to support something sinful, then a Catholic has a moral obligation to withhold these goods and services. If a Catholic decides to provide the goods and services in light of such knowledge then they are culpable for supporting sin.

A Catholic taxi driver picks up a customer. The customer does not tell him why he needs to go to a certain location. The customer's intention is to use the taxi as a means of getting to his drug dealer's house. The Catholic taxi drives takes the man unaware of the mans intention. Once they arrive the customer gives the driver the fare and proceeds to go to the dealers house to engage in sinful behavior. The taxi driver is not culpable for helping this man sin or for supporting sinful behavior.

Now we have a Catholic taxi driver who picks up a customer. This customer indicates where he wants to go and why (to meet his drug dealer). The Catholic taxi driver takes him and accepts the fare. This Catholic taxi driver is not only an occasion of the man's sin, but is culpable for supporting his sinful behavior.

Now apply this to a Catholic baker who does wedding cakes. A gay couple requests the baker to make a cake for their upcoming "wedding". The Catholic baker refuses since he knows the cake will be used in a ceremony which is supporting sinful behavior. You believe the Catholic should have to make the cake regardless. We believe the baker should have the right to refuse this service and that the gay couple should respect this and find another baker.

Now let's give another situation. A Jewsih baker gets a request from a skin-head group to make them some pastries for their Hilter birthday celebration. The Jewish baker refuses to do this. Would you tell that Jewish baker that he/she was in the wrong? Edited June 23, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[NotreDame]

Page 17... y'all are over-achievers.

[Credo in Deum]

Page 18

[Benedictus]

You are giving examples of racial and ethnic discrimination being part of a culture and thus being expressed by religious people within in the culture.  This is not the same as a religion explicitly teaching racial and ethnic discrimination. These are examples of people failing to live up to the ideals of their religion, not an exercise of religious freedom.

 

What group is being discriminated against if a person does not provide a cake for a mixed race wedding?  This is not a prejudice against a group; it is a disagreement with a practice.

 

 

 

 

Lots of businesses have a dress code.  Have you heard of "no shirt, no shoes,no service"?  Have you heard of restaurants that require men to wear a tie? Do you consider these a violation of the customers' rights?  Or is it only bad when the dress restrictions are based on religious beliefs?

 

A Muslim business refusing to serve Jews would only be exercising religious freedom if their religion taught not to serve Jews.  Religion-based discrimination is not such an exercise.

 

 

 

You are going beyond saying that people have a right to have a same-sex wedding.  You are taking the position that they have a right to force people who believe it is wrong to personally support it.  How is that balanced and fair? 
 

My personal views on religious freedom are based on the Catholic teaching on the subject.  This is not quite the same as the secular understanding.  I am not saying that the secular understanding is correct, but that many people who would claim to accept this understanding are not applying it to Catholics.  They are being inconsistent in their own beliefs.

There are examples of racial and religious discrimination, even in the Bible. It's not just a culture issue. But there also isn't some scale of holy cows. If discrimination occurs, then it simply is. The reality of whether a religion may, or not, mandate something is irrelevant. Just because some things are overlooked now, or not followed, doesn't mean it was once not a major issue enforced by religious leaders. Denominations, such as the SBC, in the 1940's and 50's were their own authority on religion. They were Christanity as much as any one elses view. They, like most groups, don't answer to anyone else. They did a bit more than simply 'not live up' to their Christian ideals.  Everyone else wasn't doing it so good, and across the world the churches still aren't. Same issues, different prejudices. And so the stones keep rolling!

In that example of the mixed race couple, they are being discrimnated against. The cake is the means through which that is expressed. It's not just a 'practice'. I don't really like playing semantic games to aviod the obvious.

You have used examples of clothes and customs of operations to defend, on equal par, with ideas to justify discrimination against fixed traits instrinsic to persons. I don't roll with that. I also don't think religion, in and of itself, has any elevated status to confer any special claim or rights to allow anyone to discriminate. The fact they do it, regardless of reasons is all that matters from a secular perspective. Religious people don't get jail free cards for their actions. They also can't use circular reasoning and false claims to authority and then expect people to accept it.  Using religion as a cheap means to abidcate our personal, legal and communal responsibility to other people shouldn't be seen as ideal. If anything it supports the claim organised religions fuels evil actions, and strips people of taking personal and rational responsibility for themselves. 

How did I say a cake shop owner has to accept a same sex wedding? They aren't having one, attending one or leading one. I also said, a few times, that they should operate their business in a way to comply with law. But this doesn't mean they are needing to deal with the clients or personally sell any cakes. They could also operate in a way to restrict operations, such as only supplying certain venues. What you're saying is you want them to have their cake and eat it, hoping to control what can or can't be done. That, regardless of anyone's view, isn't t what most people deem as reasonable behaviour. It sure isn't being proactive or realistic.

I don't think the law is being unreasonable or inconsistent. If anything I am confused what your actual position is regarding businesses having the right to refuse whoever they like. At one point you seemed to say they shouldn't exclude a homosexual couple buying general items from the store, simply only if they wanted a wedding cake. Then you seemed to say the owners should have the right to refuse service if they fel a conflict or if their servcies are supporting sin. So providing bread to a same sex couple to eat over breakfast. Should the baker kick them out ot not? Should a taxi driver refuse to drive a couple he assumes are in a relationship? Does it matter if there's only one homosexual in the car?
The church wonders why it gets people who are angry and fed up with it's attitude, or simply walk away from it.  With some of the sentiments expressed here I'm not surprised. The Jesus I know and love isn't part of any of this 'cake war'.

[Benedictus]

Page 17... y'all are over-achievers.

 

passive aggressive much?  :hehe2:

Edited June 23, 2014 by Benedictus

[CrossCuT]

Thank you Benedictus for being a Catholic witness to charity.