[Vampyr]

 PassedOut, on 2011-July-01, 19:33, said:

Although I disagree with every one of Phil's religious beliefs, I think he expresses his positions honestly, clearly, and well. He doesn't duck questions and he stands his ground in the face of opposition. I like to read his posts.

Do you really think this? I think he crosses way over the line into self-parody, which is why I still wouldn't be surprised if the parody is intentional.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Suppose that I and my friend both engaged in promiscuous activities while at university, and by some misfortune he caught a serious STD, then to my mind I would be partly responsible

Interesting as this is the argument made by Sam Harris proposing that moderate and liberal religious believers are also responsible for the violence of more radical believers because their insistence on belief without evidence helps foster society's acceptance of all mystical belief systems, including those that turn to violence.

[Vampyr]

 Winstonm, on 2011-July-02, 05:44, said:

Interesting as this is the argument made by Sam Harris proposing that moderate and liberal religious believers are also responsible for the violence of more radical believers because their insistence on belief without evidence helps foster society's acceptance of all mystical belief systems, including those that turn to violence.

Christopher Hitchin makes the same argument as Sam Harris, but I don't think that the similarity to the idea that you can be a bad influence on your friend is strong.

[PassedOut]

 Vampyr, on 2011-July-02, 05:31, said:

Do you really think this? I think he crosses way over the line into self-parody, which is why I still wouldn't be surprised if the parody is intentional.

For awhile I held that view myself. Over time, though, I've become convinced that Phil is a completely sincere and committed Roman Catholic. And I find life more interesting when I read the well-expressed opinions of folks who disagree with me.

From past discussions, Phil knows my opinion that no god exists, so that religions are without foundation. By contrast, Phil believes in God and that Roman Catholic teachings express God's will. Despite our differences, I enjoy reading his views and his explanations of why he holds them.

[Trinidad]

 hrothgar, on 2011-July-01, 08:18, said:

I would very much prefer to see near complete separate between church and state, meaning that:

1. Marriage should be a strictly religious sacrament []
2. Marriage is defined by the relationship between a man, his wife, and their church. Or, alternatively, between a man, his wife, his wife, his wife, his concubine, his concubine, and their church. Or, even between a woman, her wife, their husband, a goat, and their ever evolving concept of the spiritual. I couldn't care less how the Catholic Church decides to define marriage. At the same time, the Catholics don't get any say in what labels some some other church - say a group of fundamentalist Mormans who believe in plural marriage - decide that they want to use the term "marriage". So what? Who cares?

I agree fully with this, if it weren't for one detail in vocabulary: Why should the religious/spiritual, etc. side get the use of the term "marriage"?

For me the term "marriage" has a very secular meaning and religion is not involved in the term at all. I am not a native English speaker, but I know that I got married in front of a judge, who signed my marriage license which contains the "Great Seal of the State of Michigan". No priest, minister, imam or rabbi was involved.

If the church wants to take a secular institution, like marriage, and add their own rites to it then that is fine with me. They can say: "This is how we celebrate a marriage."

But that doesn't grant the church, or any religion, the right to monopolize the term "marriage". If they want to monopolize a term, they can come up with their own word and register it as a trademark or brand name. Then they can do whatever they like with that word. If they decide that people with blue eyes are not allowed to co-sacristate™ with people whose index finger is shorter than their ring finger, then that is up to them (as long as it is not forbidden by anti discrimination laws).

It is not as if the State of New York has told the catholic church how or who they should baptize or give the holy communion. That would be entirely different.

Note further that in many countries a church marriage is not recognized by the secular society (see e.g. the marriage of Prince Albert of Monaco). The US secular society is already quite friendly to the church by recognizing marriages that have been performed by the church. But if the church claims the monopoly on the term "marriage" then they are overplaying their hand.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 PassedOut, on 2011-July-02, 07:43, said:

And I find life more interesting when I read the well-expressed opinions of folks who disagree with me.

...

Despite our differences, I enjoy reading his views and his explanations of why he holds them.

In cases like ths, I don't find it interesting or enjoyable in the least.

This is mainly because I wouldn't grant Phil's positions the termss "opinions" or "views". Faith means believing something is true despite a complete lack of corroborating evidence, and the practical and logical impossibilities of its being true. Phil has chosen to believe a lost of highly improbable things that some people wrote a long time ago, and a lot of equally improbable things that other people have told him more recently. To be quite honest, I do not believe that such a credulous, uncritical intellect is capable of intelligent, coherent discussion on any subject whatsoever.

But it moves from farce into tragedy when such a person decides that his "views" should be enshrined in law. A person surely has the right to be foolish, but I do not believe that a person has a right to be evil.

[olegru]

 Vampyr, on 2011-July-01, 09:40, said:

The same could be said for a man living with his permanent wife.

Man living with his permanent wife has all duties and rights of married couple by definition of marriage.

We have several recognizable forms of relationships. Husband-wife, mother-son, man-girlfriend, brother-sister, person-pet. Rights and duties inside these relationships and between relationship and the rest of sociaty are diferent and regulated diferently in diferent socities.

Now we have "new" for of relationship: man and his boyfriend. I am completely agree that that relationship must be recognizable.
But I think it should be done as a new form of relationship with own sets of rights, not as a part of existing form.

[Vampyr]

 olegru, on 2011-July-03, 09:04, said:

Now we have "new" for of relationship: man and his boyfriend. I am completely agree that that relationship must be recognizable.
But I think it should be done as a new form of relationship with own sets of rights, not as a part of existing form.

Do you think it is "new"? The last anti-miscegenation laws in the United States were repealed in 1967. Were these newly-legal inter-racial unions a "new" form of relationship? It seems to me that it was just marriage, made available to more people. And the same is the case now.

Why do you think it matters what word is used?

[olegru]

No, I do not think it is only word. I believe set of rights could be diferent too.

Because we are in a bridge forum, question for you: Would you allow the same sex married couple to compete in the mixed pairs?
If not, please explain why do we have this discrimination - other married couple can play in the mixed pairs and this one can't.
With all euphoria from making equality we can't simply put "=" sign between something are not equal.

[1eyedjack]

 phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 18:44, said:

And the `catholic' governor has now been excommunicated for that.

How petty.

[1eyedjack]

 olegru, on 2011-July-03, 21:53, said:

Because we are in a bridge forum, question for you: Would you allow the same sex married couple to compete in the mixed pairs?
If not, please explain why do we have this discrimination - other married couple can play in the mixed pairs and this one can't.
With all euphoria from making equality we can't simply put "=" sign between something are not equal.

I think that the first question that you need to ask is why have a mixed pairs contest in the first place? Or for that matter a mens pairs, or a ladies pairs?

Unless you subscribe to the controversial theory that one gender has an innate handicap compared with the other, then the only remaining justification that I can think of is money. If you can think of a way of subdividing the population into distinct groups you can maximise your revenue by offering several services to the distinct groups rather than just one service to the whole population.

On that basis it would be just as logical to offer a pairs event for those with surnames beginning A to K and another L to Z, except perhaps that the Chinese dominate the letter X. With segregation by gender it is at least (normally) reasonably easy to monitor compliance.

A "mixed pair" need not be married, so I see no argument for allowing a married male couple to play in a mixed event. A Flitch, now, that might be a different matter.

If you do subscribe to the controversial theory that one gender has an innate handicap, then that would be a strong argument for barring a same sex married couple in a mixed pairs event.

[1eyedjack]

 phil_20686, on 2011-June-30, 16:18, said:

At heart, I think the main area of disagreement is about the concept of man's purpose. In the prevailing Zeitgeist of secular countries like the UK, it seems that most people see their purpose as "having a good time", or having a life with "the greatest happiness", or occasionally "to produce the greatest amount of happiness that I can". This differs hugely from a Christian understanding of life, which, considers as primary the concept of service. Thus, when coming of age, the appropriate question for a Christian to ask is "Whom shall I serve?", or more theologically "What form of service is most pleasing to God?". Since we are each born with different gifts, the specifics of our vocations differ, although it is possible to group them into broad categories, like joining a religious order, or marriage, or advocacy. Seen in this light, Christians reject the idea that marriage is primarily about feelings of happiness, and instead see marriage as entering into a life of service to ones spouse, and to society as a whole. Fulfilling this service (or indeed any appropriate vocation), is the route to true contentment and fulfilment.

I don't believe that it is a feature particularly unique to Catholicism that giving service is a route to contentment and fulfilment. In fact I think that it is a common factor among most religions. Buddhism perhaps takes it to an even greater extreme. Does this mean that we should embrace religion, and if so, any particular one?

Furthermore there are some who do not adhere to any religion, Catholicism or otherwise, who discover that (for them) the act of giving is a road to contentment and fulfilment, and do not feel the need to embrace the baggage of religious doctrines that try to dictate the form in which that service should take.

Followers of most religions, if adequately brainwashed, will profess to have led a life of contentment and fulfilment. This would also apply to some very peculiar cults, and some mainstream orders such as the Taliban (or at least the male half of that population) some of whom achieve such a state of ecstacy that they will willingly surrender their lives in its cause.

To my mind the key to the above passage is the tacit acknowledgement that contentment and fulfilment is the end to which Catholicism is the proposed means. While Catholics decry the secular societies for their "mere pursuit of happiness", that is in reality only the same end to which Catholics aspire, and it is only the route to achieve it that is contested.

Perhaps we should take care not to place unquestioned credance in self-proclaimed (and therefore necessarily subjective) claims to contentment and fulfilment.

[gordontd]

 olegru, on 2011-July-03, 21:53, said:

Because we are in a bridge forum, question for you: Would you allow the same sex married couple to compete in the mixed pairs?

No, because they are not mixed sexes. But I would certainly allow them to play in a married couples pairs if such a thing existed (though thankfully they do not any more in most places of the world). You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating "married" with "mixed", even as you discuss same-sex marriages.

[nige1]

 gordontd, on 2011-July-04, 07:24, said:

No, because they are not mixed sexes. But I would certainly allow them to play in a married couples pairs if such a thing existed (though thankfully they do not any more in most places of the world). You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating "married" with "mixed", even as you discuss same-sex marriages.

Berks and Bucks have an annual "Flitch" -- a pairs competition for married couples.

Online Etymology Dictionary said:

Flitch "side of bacon," M.E. flicche (early 13c.), from O.E. flicce, related to O.N. flikki, M.L.G. vlicke "piece of flesh." Not immediately connected to flesh, but perhaps from the same PIE root. A flitch was presented every year at Dunmow, in Essex, to any married couple who could prove they had lived together without quarreling for a year and a day, a custom mentioned as far back as mid-14c.

[gordontd]

 nige1, on 2011-July-04, 07:49, said:

Berks and Bucks have an annual "Flitch" -- a pairs competition for married couples.

Do they have to prove they've lived together without quarreling? (For a day, never mind a year and a day, would be hard enough in the case of one prominent B&B couple I can think of!)

[hrothgar]

 Trinidad, on 2011-July-03, 05:54, said:

I agree fully with this, if it weren't for one detail in vocabulary: Why should the religious/spiritual, etc. side get the use of the term "marriage"?

Hi Rik

From my perspective, the state should solely be concerned with issues such as property rights, visitation rights, inheritance, etc...
I can't imagine why anyone would want to refer to the act of entering into such a contract as a "marriage".
It seems complete separately and distinct...

With this said and done, I wouldn't have any objection if two people wanted to pledge themselves to one another in some non legally binding way without the formal participation of an established church and use the expression "marriage" to describe this arrangement.

[helene_t]

 hrothgar, on 2011-July-04, 10:32, said:

From my perspective, the state should solely be concerned with issues such as property rights, visitation rights, inheritance, etc...
I can't imagine why anyone would want to refer to the act of entering into such a contract as a "marriage".

But they do.

Couples could, in theory, make a conscious choice as to whether they want to give each other visitation rights, whether they want to share the parental duties for future children born by one of them, etc.

But that's not what they do. They just get married, without knowing in detail what duties that implies. This is very practical because the alternative is that they would have to hire an expensive lawyer to make sure that their tailored contract makes sense from a legal point of view. You know the kind of statutes and contracts amateurs make when they try to run associations and such without professional legal advice. It's a legal nightmare, full of clauses that are contradictory, unclear, insufficient or non-enforceable, or have unintended implications.

BTW, I don't understand this "visiting right" thing. Does it mean that spouses can visit 24/7 while friends and colleagues can only visit during dedicated visiting times?

[Bbradley62]

 helene_t, on 2011-July-04, 10:49, said:

BTW, I don't understand this "visiting right" thing. Does it mean that spouses can visit 24/7 while friends and colleagues can only visit during dedicated visiting times?

Sometimes it's this, or sometimes it's only your lawyer or spouse can see you at all.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Helene.

It's the state's job to provide infrastructure. This is not only the visible infrastructure (roads, etc.) but also legal infrastructure.

I think it is entirely appropriate for the state to provide "default contracts" for situations that arise frequently. A legal marriage is one of those situations. And the mere fact that the state provides one or more default contracts doesnot pass a moral judgement. It is only supposed to make sure that these default contracts "fit" the rest of the legal infrastructure properly. Any two (or more) parties are free to enter their own contract, but it doesn't come with a guarantee from the government.

If there ever is a high demand for contracts between 7 people, a cat, an iguana and an apple tree, it is the state's job to provide fitting contracts. At this point there is a significant demand for contracts between two people of the same sex. It is the state's job to provide the default contracts that fit the existing legal infrastructure. If the state doesn#t do this job, it is not serving its citizens the way it should.

Rik

[hrothgar]

 Trinidad, on 2011-July-05, 04:00, said:

I agree with Helene.

It's the state's job to provide infrastructure. This is not only the visible infrastructure (roads, etc.) but also legal infrastructure.

I think it is entirely appropriate for the state to provide "default contracts" for situations that arise frequently. A legal marriage is one of those situations. And the mere fact that the state provides one or more default contracts doesnot pass a moral judgement. It is only supposed to make sure that these default contracts "fit" the rest of the legal infrastructure properly. Any two (or more) parties are free to enter their own contract, but it doesn't come with a guarantee from the government.

If there ever is a high demand for contracts between 7 people, a cat, an iguana and an apple tree, it is the state's job to provide fitting contracts. At this point there is a significant demand for contracts between two people of the same sex. It is the state's job to provide the default contracts that fit the existing legal infrastructure. If the state doesn#t do this job, it is not serving its citizens the way it should.

Rik

I don't object to any of this. I'd even go so far as to call it a good idea...
However, I wouldn't call this set of legal responsibilities a marriage (regardless of whether it is being issued to a man and a woman, two women, or three guys and a wombat)

I view this system as being significantly different from the existing standard here in the United States, both for heterosexuals and for homosexuals.
Part of the reason to chose an expression other than "marriage" is indicate that this is separate and distinct from what came before.