Reclaiming the Moral High Ground

Thank you. In my own defense, I was NEVER arguing "thou shalt agree with Mac," or, more importantly, "thou shalt agree with the Roman Catholic Church." No. If that was not clear, I apologize for my poor writing.

I was only pushing the idea (and a universal truth, mind you) that one should understand the other guy's point of view before putting up arguments against his position. If you don't actually know what the other guy is saying, then you're not actually having a conversation, or a debate, WITH him. You're just talking over his head, and nobody gains from the experience.

Now you found the distinction! It's that last part: "... not the full freedom of choice that many people feel they should be given." That's where the debate needs to go. The catch phrase "equality for all" is meaningless for exactly that reason: We can already all drink the same two types of beers, all of us. So, you're right -- the debate should be phrased as freedom to choose something different. That will get traction.

Yes, and in general it's an idea that I accept myself. For real.
It was one of the topics in a graduate course in ethics that I took back in the day. However -- going Sun Szu again, "know your enemy," speaking still in the context of the Bible and Catholic morality, I do not believe it applies here. This is an area in which the Catholic Church says it never changed, and factually they appear to be correct about history. Scientists ought never be afraid of the facts, right? Like it or not, this area does not seem to fit the mould of evolving morality in the Catholic context. I could argue evolving morals with, say, slavery, when I took that ethics course, but I could not do it with this topic.

Maybe you're better at it than I am. That'd be great.

And groaningly painful, probably, too! But sure, your point is fair. Of course their stuff is written according to a specific world view. If one disagrees with their initial assumptions behind their world view, then a lot of conclusions will fall flat. Of course. If one, however, accepts certain initial assumptions -- then the conclusions will not be stupid, because those old Catholic guys are very good at what they do. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, but with a qualifier. Knowing what I want to say, and knowing why I want to say it, are different things. I think that's what you're touching on with the "accepting that it's reasonable" part, and I think it's crucial. We do this in face-to-face social circles. Once we learn the background of someone, learn why he or she thinks that way or acts that way, then we very often soften towards that person. The "why" parts matter.

That is a rational position. What, though, of forcing business owners to participate when said business owner is a member of -- okay, say the Roman Catholic Church. Keep it simple. Presently there are two law suits being discussed on talk radio where I live. In one, a cake maker refused to make a cake for a homosexual wedding. In the other, a photographer refused to take pictures for a homosexual wedding. Illegal discrimination???? They both claimed a religious objection, but technically, it appears as though they both violated an anti-discrimination law. I do not know what church(es) they are members of, but that doesn't matter to the point. The point is, should the cake maker and the photographer be forced as a matter of law to participate in weddings that their personal religions disavow? :dunno:

 

Excellent!

The more ingrained it is, the more cautious one should be about changing it. That is their position, and, says me, it is a merely a wise truism of universal applicability being applied to a specific context.

No. The "how" of how something becomes Catholic doctrine is not obscure. We've all learned of this-or-that "council" in history. We've all learned that the Church cites backwards in time to prior councils and prior writings of famous people for the express purpose of maintaining consistency. The Church is stuck now. By its own rules, the only way it can change its position on this matter is to hold an official council meeting. That much we should all know from our school days.

Apparently unclear. I was speaking of the definitions of marriage and family. Never in American history, nor English history, nor German history, etc, that I can recall over my entire life of reading and listening, was the definition other than man+woman for marriage, and then +siblings+offspring for family. In the USA there was a Supreme Court case about polygamy that recites the history of marriage for our American/British cultures. It is what it is, and that's not a judgement statement. That's just a factual observation. Scientists can't be afraid of the facts. We can't be afraid of the facts here either. The Catholic Church might be wrong about other things, and we can disagree with its conclusions on a hundred topics, but we have to acknowledge that on this issue, it is defending the ancient definition of marriage and family upon which we built our nations. That alone was my point.

 

Modernly the USA has a constitutional amendment against that, and I don't think slavery of the American history sort was ever morally correct anyway. Politically I am a Libertarian, so I hold a high view of "ownership of one's own body," and I like to think that I could make a sufficient argument against any religion endorsing slavery.

Interestingly, the answer for the cake/photography story depends on how one frames the issue. Are we saying that Customer is forcing Baker/Photographer to affirmatively do something? If so, the answer is Baker/Photographer wins. It's slavery, in effect.

But are we instead saying that Baker/Photographer holds his business out to the public but then refused to serve the public, effectively breaking his contract? Now Customer wins.

I would wager that courts will take the latter view.

 

"Cultural" minorities? I'm not sure what that means, but I think I'm going to say "No."

No, those laws did not change the definition of marriage.

English laws derive out of property law, and in particular, out of real property laws. America explicitly adopted the entirety of English law upon the end of the Revolutionary War. Thievery and voluntary sales aside, real property was passed through the family. Everything to do with inheritance is a marriage/family issue, and inheritance is what connects the generations. Roman Catholic priests cannot get married because there was a problem of inheritance. Blood lines for royalty are a marriage/family issue at the forefront of European history. Guilds and trade unions originated in family operations. Entire businesses were passed down through the family to give us all the glory and all the ugliness of the "Industrial Revolution." How about citizenship laws? It's family and marriage again.

 

I'm adding you to El Mitcho's list of those due a belly slam for confusing less and fewer.....

...and you for your totally bogus spelling of Wyld Stallyns

Mitch