In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"

[Outis]

Gays spread STDs at far higher rates than the general population.

For some diseases, this is true, for some, it is not. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893897
And lesbians have the lowest rates of STD transmission: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377304/

In contrast, gayness has no benefit to society to balance this out.

Rights in the US are not based on "benefit to society." They are based solely on citizenship (for certain rights, on presence).

Gays are thus a net drag on society and should be eliminated.
Marrying corpses is a waste of time and resources.
Other net drags on society: the disabled, the elderly.

The fun thing about secularism in general and utilitarianism in particular is that you can plausibly argue for just about anything. Including mass slaughter. Good job, bro. Or should I call you "Bruder" instead?

I believe this will be our last interaction, Mr. Executor.

[Spartacus]

And you still haven't actually discussed my central argument, or even the terms of debate I set out.

Not what I said. You are incapable of _solely secular_ thought. By the same token, I am incapable of Catholic thought.

Then what use were my two semesters of university-level philosophy? My time studying post-enlightenment political thought? Of pre-Christian philosophies and political orders? What was the point of my time in high school competitive debate, if not to learn how to make arguments from perspectives other than my own?

And I will note that while Mr. Lao and I did so in different manners, we called you on the same issue.

Not exactly. He implied that my argument was essentially religious. You're arguing that it could not conceivably be otherwise simply because I am myself religious. His was an argument about my argument, yours about me personally.

[Outis]

And you still haven't actually discussed my central argument, or even the terms of debate I set out.

Excuse me, Mr. Spartacus, but I started this thread. I specifically chose the location for the purposes I explained. If you have a problem with the parameters of the discussion as I have created it, I welcome you to start your own thread for your own discussion.

[Spartacus]

Excuse me, Mr. Spartacus, but I started this thread. I specifically chose the location for the purposes I explained. If you have a problem with the parameters of the discussion as I have created it, I welcome you to start your own thread for your own discussion.

I'm not asking you to adopt them, I'm asking you to respond to them.


In the third section of post #59, I explained what I thought the key questions in this debate were, and asked you whether you agreed with my articulation. I would greatly appreciate it if you would let me know whether you think I have fairly summarized the main points of contention in the debate over the redefinition of marriage.

[Outis]

I'm not asking you to adopt them, I'm asking you to respond to them.

For the purposes of this discussion, I decline to do so here. As I said, you are welcome to start your own thread. When I am in your thread, I will do my best to abide by your parameters for the discussion.

Please do not start the thread in a theist only section. If I understand the rules correctly, I am not supposed to post there.

[Darth Executor]

For some diseases, this is true, for some, it is not. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893897

Not relevant to the argument.

And lesbians have the lowest rates of STD transmission: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377304/

Also outside the scope of this argument.

Rights in the US are not based on "benefit to society." They are based solely on citizenship (for certain rights, on presence).

There is no right to have the government bless your personal relationships. Plus, gays can already get government approval of their marriage, which is not granted based on love. More importantly, I was responding to a post asking for secular reasons to deny it.

I believe this will be our last interaction, Mr. Executor.

You mean you will run away without making a counter-argument, mostly because you can't. Wise choice.

[robrecht]

But in Catholicism, reason is (and must be) subservient to religion. Always. ...

No, not always. If interested, read John Scottus Eriugena, one of my very favorite Catholic theologians.

[Outis]

No, not always. If interested, read John Scottus Eriugena, one of my very favorite Catholic theologians.

Catholic, and heretic. Had he been alive when his book was reviewed, he would have been ordered to recant. One cannot count on Eriugena for an analysis of normative Catholic thought.

[phank]

From what I have seen, the approach the courts have taken has been consistent. No civil right in the US is absolute; there are exceptions in many circumstances. The most common exception is if the harm that can be demonstrated from exercising a right exceeds the harm that can be demonstrated by denying that right. And so we take some rights away from people in some circumstances - just visit a prison!

And in case after case, the State has been unable to demonstrate any harm suffered by anyone under any circumstances, by permitting same-sex marriage. Conversely, those suing to obtain the right to marry are able to show considerable harm in being denied. There are over a thousand laws, regulations, and precedents regarding marriage. Eric Holder just emphasized a few of them, saying the Federal Government is going to recognize such marriages in all 50 states, in terms of federal jurisdiction. That means, among other things, granting visitation rights, not requiring spouses to testify against one another, matters of probate, etc. Denial of these rights is regarded by the courts as clear and present injury.

And so court after court has been tossing out state constitutional amendments denying this basic right to a class of formerly second-class citizens.

So we're left with the sort of peevish trivia we see here: That a Christian bakery is guilty of refusing to provide an advertised service. What the he11 are they doing in the bakery business if they won't sell a cake? Well, they claim they are being persecuted for their beliefs. Alas, the courts discover (without looking real hard), it's not the customers who are causing the problem. The only thing being denied all of these so-called Christians (because do we really think Jesus would refuse to sell a wedding cake?) is the "right" to special privilege. The right to marry while denying others that right, etc.

In brief, the right to do unto others what you would have civil authorities prevent others from doing unto you. It's the denial of special privilege that's deemed "persecution".

[robrecht]

Catholic, and heretic. Had he been alive when his book was reviewed, he would have been ordered to recant. One cannot count on Eriugena for an analysis of normative Catholic thought.

He is by no means normative, nor did I say he was. Some people rejected his views but that's also true of St. Thomas Aquinas, who became the most normative Catholic theologian.

[Paprika]

So we're left with the sort of peevish trivia we see here: That a Christian bakery is guilty of refusing to provide an advertised service. What the he11 are they doing in the bakery business if they won't sell a cake?

I think it rather disturbing that when one sets up a business one is obliged, in general, to sell to anyone.

The only thing being denied all of these so-called Christians (because do we really think Jesus would refuse to sell a wedding cake?) is the "right" to special privilege. The right to marry while denying others that right, etc.

In brief, the right to do unto others what you would have civil authorities prevent others from doing unto you. It's the denial of special privilege that's deemed "persecution".

Christians who oppose legalisation of same-sex "marriage" aren't saying that non-Christians shouldn't marry. Also, you think you define who is a Christian?

[Darth Executor]

From what I have seen, the approach the courts have taken has been consistent. No civil right in the US is absolute; there are exceptions in many circumstances. The most common exception is if the harm that can be demonstrated from exercising a right exceeds the harm that can be demonstrated by denying that right. And so we take some rights away from people in some circumstances - just visit a prison!

Government endorsement of your personal relationship is not a civil right.

And in case after case, the State has been unable to demonstrate any harm suffered by anyone under any circumstances, by permitting same-sex marriage.

The State is pretty liberal and often doesn't really try all that hard.

And so court after court has been tossing out state constitutional amendments denying this basic right to a class of formerly second-class citizens.

There is no right, basic or otherwise, being denied to anybody.

So we're left with the sort of peevish trivia we see here: That a Christian bakery is guilty of refusing to provide an advertised service. What the he11 are they doing in the bakery business if they won't sell a cake? Well, they claim they are being persecuted for their beliefs. Alas, the courts discover (without looking real hard), it's not the customers who are causing the problem. The only thing being denied all of these so-called Christians (because do we really think Jesus would refuse to sell a wedding cake?) is the "right" to special privilege. The right to marry while denying others that right, etc.

Not being forced to work for someone is now a "special privilege". Looks like the Party of Slavery is returning to her roots. Aren't you the same guy who was heehawing about muh freedumb in the abortion thread? Drilling the brains out of a baby: acceptable sacrifice for liberty. Not being sold a cake: now you've gone too far.

Jesus is planning on throwing all unrepentant sinners into the Lake of Fire. Last I checked that includes the bulk of homosexuals. That strikes me a tad more homophobic than not selling them a cake.

In brief, the right to do unto others what you would have civil authorities prevent others from doing unto you.

If someone didn't want to sell me a wedding cake or take pictures at my wedding I'd go somewhere else. I find the idea of suing people over something like this utterly repulsive.

[Outis]

He is by no means normative, nor did I say he was. Some people rejected his views but that's also true of St. Thomas Aquinas, who became the most normative Catholic theologian.

I don't recall a pope ever rejecting Aquinas, or accusing his works of being filled with "worms of heresy."

And we are somewhat off topic.

[robrecht]

I don't recall a pope ever rejecting Aquinas, or accusing his works of being filled with "worms of heresy."

And we are somewhat off topic.

Popes come and go, and so do their opinions of the views of theologians. Thomas' teachings were condemned by the bishop of Paris, whom the Pope charged with conducting the investigation. Certainly he was not opposed as much as Eriugena was by some, but Thomas was not as original of a thinker as Eriugena, and not knowing Greek was not as directly in touch with Eastern Orthodoxy. Yes, it is off topic. I was merely correcting your 'always'.

[Spartacus]

Popes come and go, and so do their opinions of the views of theologians. Thomas' teachings were condemned by the bishop of Paris, whom the Pope charged with conducting the investigation. Certainly he was not opposed as much as Eriugena was by some, but Thomas was not as original of a thinker as Eriugena, and not knowing Greek was not as directly in touch with Eastern Orthodoxy. Yes, it is off topic. I was merely correcting your 'always'.

To continue the tangent for just a moment longer: in the eyes of the Church, Scotus was right and Aquinas was wrong with respect to the Immaculate Conception.