faith and reason Today's Society/Church and Learning From the Catholics

[TOmNossor]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You capture here an important aspect of this discussion: where we are is a historical moment. What you describe, quite accurately, as 'our society' is just one out of literally an infinite number of iterations of culture and practice. Those who exist within the assumptions of early 21st-century Western society struggle to see it, but their current understandings of things like attraction and sex (and so much more!) are not universal, either across space or time. Most of the world's people have lived and died without having ever been exposed to Western social constructs, and even today, the Western colonisation of the human imagination is far from complete.

It will be interesting to see what the next few decades bring. I'm already starting to see the early stirrings of academic push-back, with a number of studies from just the past few years pointing out how Western- (and often US-) centric nearly all social science research is, including psychology -- with categories of being that simply don't match reality on the ground elsewhere. Will Western conceptions of attraction and sex, being and identity -- which are themselves such recent constructions that we have no trouble tracing their genealogy -- really take the leap from discursive ascendancy to universal reality, or has the tide already started turning, with the rest of the world (and many Western subaltern voices, such as those of the Saints) ready to say, 'Stop telling me who I am and how I have to be!'

We live in interesting times. Thanks for your thoughts, Tom. They certainly resonate with me.

ETA: As I have carefully read what the living prophets have said on this and other issues, I long ago concluded that they are far more informed from a position of reason (and history!), than almost anyone else I have encountered.

I wanted to quickly respond here (I thought I should argue before I agreed so ...).  

It was because of something you said long ago that I have ceased to speak of homosexual and heterosexual people (except when I slip up or when I am trying to shock folks by calling myself a dirty "ro" or a "breeder"). 

I would welcome a pullback from our current cultural view of sex and attraction.  I cannot see how that will come about, but I appreciate your perspective as a historian.  I am only slightly removed from being a fish who doesn't know what it means to be wet!

Charity, TOm

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

When I looked closer at the church’s view it was obvious that they were fairly consistent in rejecting society’s view on sex altogether.

There is literally nothing I can disagree with in your entire post above. This one quote plus the one below from another post belong together, I suspect. It's too late tonight for me to post anything coherent, but I think the rational Saints (and the Catholics and others) have an essential role to play. If times of madness are to be truly temporary, someone has to preserve reason. Again, many thanks!

5 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

I would welcome a pullback from our current cultural view of sex and attraction.  I cannot see how that will come about, but I appreciate your perspective as a historian. 

 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

Some more because I can used google scholar too:

Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development
Sotirios Sarantakos

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/children-australia/article/children-in-three-contexts-family-education-and-social-development/BA0DB5DC62B9E7D955454A5BB165F7F8

This paper addresses many of the studies that conclude no differences and question aspects of them.

A Review and Critique of Research on Same-Sex Parenting and Adoption
Walter R. Schumm 
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0033294116665594

This one mentions that many previous samples seem to have only included a small set of Lesbian couples (possibly due to self-selection bias), but that when this randomized sample was used there was a large difference among results for Lesbian couples and with the greater sample differences appeared as compared to opposite sex couples.

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
MarkRegnerus
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Here form Canada:
High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households
Douglas W. Allen

 

This study seems very interesting.  I pointed out that children are not born to SSM couples and logistically this creates issues for society.  It would seem that such logistical jostling also creates issues for children.  Much (but not all) of the less optimal results observed in this study are theorized to come from the jostling not the same-sex parenting.Psychosocial Well-Being in Children of Same-Sex Parents: A Longitudinal Analysis of Familial Transitions
Daniel Potter and Emily Potter
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X16646338

Let me conclude this mess with this statement.

My argument for emphasizing the ideal family is based on the ideal.
I think the more compelling data currently suggests that there are structural disadvantages for children of SSMs.  That being said, there is zero reason that a pair of committed fathers cannot overcome much of these issues.  A handful of the studies I found suggested that the equivalence results you cited were a product of extraordinary same sex parents self-selecting for inclusion in studies.  Be an extraordinary SSM parent!
Charity, TOm

I always find it fascinating when I am exposed to people like you who are so eager to cast gay families as being so inferior to straight families as if straight marriages are so successful over gay marriages.  The statistics show little support for putting straight marriages on some kind of superior pedestal. Huge divorce rates and the vast number of single parent homes as a result of tha.those marriages that you are loarding over gay couples. Statistically only about 25% of the population lives in a family consisting of a father, mother and children.  Yet the families we should be discrediting through any possible study no matter how questionable the study are gay families.  Let’s discredit the value of those marriages   Lets wave around any study Google can come up with that will cast a bad light on those families, whether those studies has been peered reviewed or not.  Whether any nationally recognized professional association finds such studies as credible or not.  Surely we must do this or those gay families will bring about the downfall of society   

I wish you well on your crusade. I am sure you will find many to support your cause

Edited February 27, 2018 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

I hate to derail this gay marriage thread into the original topic but here goes anyway

As I work my way through "Fides et Ratio" I note some paragraphs which seem to have contradictions and would love it if someone could explain to me how to resolve the conficts,

Perhaps I have not yet gotten to the answers.  I will emphasize the apparent problems.

Quote

 

82. Yet this sapiential function could not be performed by a philosophy which was not itself a true and authentic knowledge, addressed, that is, not only to particular and subordinate aspects of reality—functional, formal or utilitarian—but to its total and definitive truth, to the very being of the object which is known. This prompts a second requirement: that philosophy verify the human capacity to know the truth, to come to a knowledge which can reach objective truth by means of that adaequatio rei et intellectus to which the Scholastic Doctors referred.⁹⁹ This requirement, proper to faith, was explicitly reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council: “Intelligence is not confined to observable data alone. It can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable, though in consequence of sin that certitude is partially obscured and weakened”. ¹⁰⁰

A radically phenomenalist or relativist philosophy would be ill-adapted to help in the deeper exploration of the riches found in the word of God. Sacred Scripture always assumes that the individual, even if guilty of duplicity and mendacity, can know and grasp the clear and simple truth. The Bible, and the New Testament in particular, contains texts and statements which have a genuinely ontological content. The inspired authors intended to formulate true statements, capable, that is, of expressing objective reality. It cannot be said that the Catholic tradition erred when it took certain texts of Saint John and Saint Paul to be statements about the very being of Christ. In seeking to understand and explain these statements, theology needs therefore the contribution of a philosophy which does not disavow the possibility of a knowledge which is objectively true, even if not perfect. This applies equally to the judgements of moral conscience, which Sacred Scripture considers capable of being objectively true. ¹⁰¹

83. The two requirements already stipulated imply a third: the need for a philosophy of genuinely metaphysical range, capable, that is, of transcending empirical data in order to attain something absolute, ultimate and foundational in its search for truth. This requirement is implicit in sapiential and analytical knowledge alike; and in particular it is a requirement for knowing the moral good, which has its ultimate foundation in the Supreme Good, God himself. Here I do not mean to speak of metaphysics in the sense of a specific school or a particular historical current of thought. I want only to state that reality and truth do transcend the factual and the empirical, and to vindicate the human being's capacity to know this transcendent and metaphysical dimension in a way that is true and certain, albeit imperfect and analogical. In this sense, metaphysics should not be seen as an alternative to anthropology, since it is metaphysics which makes it possible to ground the concept of personal dignity in virtue of their spiritual nature. In a special way, the person constitutes a privileged locus for the encounter with being, and hence with metaphysical enquiry.

 

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

"True and certain albeit imperfect and analogical."

The contradictions, at least for me, are totally obvious.

Regarding how we know the will of God, this:

“Intelligence is not confined to observable data alone. It can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable, though in consequence of sin that certitude is partially obscured and weakened”.

Reality itself can be known with certainty but it is obscured.

Please can someone explain this?

Edited February 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I suppose this is a monologue at this point but I want to continue, if for no one else, then for me.  Perhaps some day someone will discover the thread and contribute.

And TOm can close the thread if he likes.

Again, commenting on Fides et Ratio, the focus becomes precisely the problem I have pointed out here many many times.

Unfortunately no solution to the problem is offered.  Emphasis added.

Quote

84. The importance of metaphysics becomes still more evident if we consider current developments in hermeneutics and the analysis of language. The results of such studies can be very helpful for the understanding of faith, since they bring to light the structure of our thought and speech and the meaning which language bears. However, some scholars working in these fields tend to stop short at the question of how reality is understood and expressed, without going further to see whether reason can discover its essence. How can we fail to see in such a frame of mind the confirmation of our present crisis of confidence in the powers of reason? When, on the basis of preconceived assumptions, these positions tend to obscure the contents of faith or to deny their universal validity, then not only do they abase reason but in so doing they also disqualify themselves. Faith clearly presupposes that human language is capable of expressing divine and transcendent reality in a universal way—analogically, it is true, but no less meaningfully for that. ¹⁰³ Were this not so, the word of God, which is always a divine word in human language, would not be capable of saying anything about God. The interpretation of this word cannot merely keep referring us to one interpretation after another, without ever leading us to a statement which is simply true; otherwise there would be no Revelation of God, but only the expression of human notions about God and about what God presumably thinks of us.

Yes this is precisely the problem, and yet no solution is offered only a sense of desperation that there MUST be a way to solve the problem of a way to "objective theological truth".

Can truth be "objective" if it can only be expressed in analogies and parables and be expressed in ways that NOT analogies?   I just don't see it.

If anyone would see the need to solve the problem of objective truth upon which the philosophy behind Catholicism is based, it would be the Roman Pontiff.  Yet no solution is offered that I can find.

Repeatedly I have noted that Rorty is the only one who seems to have solved the problem- not in the way the church would like, but the problem of the human expression of revelation can only be accomplished with the abandonment of the notion of "objective truth" in its expression.

I am reminded of a quote attributed to Satan, nevertheless he expresses the only possible conclusion, in my opinion:  "There IS no other way"

The above quote seems almost to be a plea for a refutation of Rorty's statements.  The similarities are striking.

Quote

 

Rorty: I think it was unfortunate that Pragmatism became seen as a theory of truth.  I think it would have been better if the pragmatists had said “We can tell you about justification we just can’t tell you about “truth” - there’s nothing to be said about it.  We know how we justify beliefs, we know that the adjective “true” is applied to beliefs we have justified, we know that a belief can be true without being justified, that’s about all we know about truth.  Justification is relative to an audience or range  of truth candidates, “TRUTH” is not relative to anything.  

Just because it isn’t relative to anything, there’s nothing to be said about it.

Truth with a capital T is sort of like God- there’s nothing to say about God.  That’s why theologians talk about ineffability, contemporary Pragmatists tend to say the word “truth” is undefinable, but none the worse for that, we know how to use it, we don’t have to define it.

Commentator: That’s like Nietzschean Perspectivism “There are no facts only interpretations”

Rorty: That gives the general Pragmatist idea that no description, or if you like, interpretation is closer to “reality” than another, some of  them are more useful for some purposes than others, but that’s about all you can say.

Nietzschean perspectivism which says you can’t rise above interpretations to get to facts, or dig down below interpretations to get to facts, it’s substantially the same thing that I said before that Pragmatists try to get rid of the reality / appearance distinction.

 

Is there another way other than subjective feelings to verify the words of revelation?   Is there a way around Moroni 10 and Alma 32 and James 1?

There is no other way.

Faith demands faith, not reason.  Fideism is the only rational answer I can see.

Edited February 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[TOmNossor]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

I always find it fascinating when I am exposed to people like you who are so eager to cast gay families as being so inferior to straight families as if straight marriages are so successful over gay marriages.  The statistics show little support for putting straight marriages on some kind of superior pedestal. Huge divorce rates and the vast number of single parent homes as a result of tha.those marriages that you are loarding over gay couples. Statistically only about 25% of the population lives in a family consisting of a father, mother and children.  Yet the families we should be discrediting through any possible study no matter how questionable the study are gay families.  Let’s discredit the value of those marriages   Lets wave around any study Google can come up with that will cast a bad light on those families, whether those studies has been peered reviewed or not.  Whether any nationally recognized professional association finds such studies as credible or not.  Surely we must do this or those gay families will bring about the downfall of society   

I wish you well on your crusade. I am sure you will find many to support your cause

“People like me!”  Good gosh! 

This is pure emotion.  TOm is beating up on the kind and loving man California Boy.  This is dehumanizing and is not an argument.  Never mind that I explained I would welcome you to worship with me today AND on a future day when perhaps the church changes its position on SSM (in case you cannot worship with me today because of the current church position).  I also said:

22 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

My argument for emphasizing the ideal family is based on the ideal.
I think the more compelling data currently suggests that there are structural disadvantages for children of SSMs.  That being said, there is zero reason that a pair of committed fathers cannot overcome much of these issues.  A handful of the studies I found suggested that the equivalence results you cited were a product of extraordinary same sex parents self-selecting for inclusion in studies.  Be an extraordinary SSM parent!

I would bet on you being extraordinary if I gambled and there was a market.

But, I am “people like me.”

You do not have to use reason to arrive at your positions that is ok.  You will win most arguments with most people by using emotion.  You are in fact winning in real life. 

That being said, I am suggesting that members of society at large and members of LDS society should not abandon the evolved or historical or revealed truths associated with the importance of marriage and family for emotional appeals that do not align with rational arguments.  You relying upon emotional appeals makes me think my assessment of this is more likely to be right than I thought before.

Now, probably for the emotional strength of this, you said that I am “so eager to cast gay families as being so inferior to straight families as if straight marriages are so successful over gay marriages.”  If I understand what you have said, then you do not understand the preponderance of evidence (studies that both of us have provided and reasoned arguments) in this thread or what I am trying to say.

My purpose is far more muted and success IMO does not require me to denigrate “gay families as being so inferior.”  Every one of your studies argued that rearing of children in SSM results are no better or worse than non-SSM rearing results.  The studies I sited argued that ON AVERAGE children reared in SSMs have more problems (emotional and other problems) than children reared in a family with their biological mother and father and that these results meet statistical tests to indicate that sample sizes and detected differences are statistically significant.  Furthermore, there is evidence that the methodologies involved in your studies, errors in identifying SSMs (this was a really dopey error done by folks that I cannot think really wanted to present real data), errors in sample size (having a direct impact upon what sort of differences would be statistically significant), and errors in self-selection bias; created the evidence of parity (without these errors the averages differ by statistically significant amounts – not axe killer vs. Mother Teresa amounts, but statistically significant amounts). 

That being said, I told you to be an extraordinary SSM father so that you can achieve parity (or hopefully and LIKELY better than parity, because parity as you point out sucks in all parts of the world), precisely because I do not think of gay families as being SO INFERIOR.

My muted purpose is to argue that the IDEAL is that children are raised by their biological mother and father in a stable home.  My daughter is not part of the ideal, but I will do what I can (and stay out of the way of my wife as she does GREAT things) to help my daughter do better than parity. 

The data from your studies and my studies can only mean that this IDEAL rearing on average (ON AVERAGE) is better for children than SSM rearing.  This is one of the reasons that this rearing by biological mother and father is the ideal.  There are others reasons have nothing to do with church or God that the ideal is as I describe and our studies do not address these.

Furthermore, I suggest that as a society and as a church we should teach the ideal and emphasize the ideal.  We can then make allowances for divorce, adoption, single parent homes, SSA folks who may enter into SSM.  These allowances should be designed to ameliorate potential pitfalls identified when the ideal is not possible/achieved.  But, the IDEAL will not change because nobody lives a perfect life.  “Be ye therefore perfect, eventually,” not “be completely satisfied with less than perfect because perfect is just too hard.” 

I am so unemotional about all of this.  I really do not care that you referred to me derisively as “people like you.”  I wanted to talk about this without causing pain or opening old wounds.  I truly would welcome you into my ward and I will gladly sit next to you now or when/if the CoJCoLDS changes its position on this.  I am sorry for the mistreatment that I expect has happened for you.  I don’t know how your “coming out” affected your life, your parents, and others.  I love my uncle and my nephew and a handful of friends.  My uncle is married and comfortable in his skin, my nephew not so much. I cannot erase hurt and pain, but I know someone who can.  Jesus Christ died for those with SSA and those without SSA.  I hope you find peace and threads like this do not cause you pain in the future.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I hate to derail this gay marriage thread into the original topic but here goes anyway

As I work my way through "Fides et Ratio" I note some paragraphs which seem to have contradictions and would love it if someone could explain to me how to resolve the conficts,

Perhaps I have not yet gotten to the answers.  I will emphasize the apparent problems.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

"True and certain albeit imperfect and analogical."

The contradictions, at least for me, are totally obvious.

Regarding how we know the will of God, this:

“Intelligence is not confined to observable data alone. It can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable, though in consequence of sin that certitude is partially obscured and weakened”.

Reality itself can be known with certainty but it is obscured.

Please can someone explain this?

I cannot solve these with word definitions absolutely intact.  I think your case that True vs. analogical in this context creates a conflict.  That something is known with certainty but is obscured seems problematic too.

I will give it a shot.  I think I will lean towards the idea that faith and reason should go together, but I will explore this with you.

JPII might mean:

There are facts that are true that are known.  The way those come to be known is through likening the transcendent with things we experience in our world through analogies.  There are aspects of the Trinity that are known through the image of the 3-leaf clover.  There are aspects of the Trinity that are known through the common Trinity shield, “is God, is God, is God, is not ….”  The Trinity is true and some folks come to know this.  These analogies help express what is known, but like all analogies can be pushed too far. 

TOm says:

I do not actually subscribe to the idea that the Trinity can be known in the human mind because I think if you push to hard you get to violations of the law of non-contradiction, at least if you wish to rule out my views of the Trinity and all the other views that have been declared heretical by the Catholic Church.

 

JPII might mean:

That certainty is a product of faith and contact with God.  That when our rational mind tries to pin down EXACTLY what this certainty is, our human limitations obscure it.  By analogy, you might be certain that you have a powerful beast in the cage, but because a curtain obscures your view you are unsure if it is a lion, tiger or bear.

TOm says:

Not too much.

 

 

I will repeat the quote from Arch Bishop Chaput:

Quote

 

Why do you think these problems of faith and reason are so recurring in our time?
Science and technology can seem — but only seem — to make the supernatural and sacramental implausible. The language of faith can start to sound alien and irrelevant. This is why we lose so many young people before they even consider religious belief. They’re catechized every day by a stream of materialist distractions that don’t disprove God, but create an indifference to him.
The Church is struggling with a lot of self-doubt. It’s natural in an age of rapid change. I think many Church pastors and scholars have simply lost confidence in the rationality of faith and the reliability of God’s word, without being willing to admit it. Instead, they take refuge in humanitarian feelings and social action. But you don’t need God for either of those things, at least in the short run. In the long run, God is the only sure guarantor of human rights and dignity. So we need to think our Christianity — deeply, faithfully and rigorously — as well as feel it.

 

Perhaps I should offer Faith and Rationality.  I think we can think deeply, faithfully, and rigorously about our faith.  I think we “take refuge in humanitarian feelings and social action.”  We immerse ourselves in loving others and subordinate truth to love.  These are things that I was thinking about.

I will reply more to your next post.

Charity, TOm

Edited February 28, 2018 by TOmNossor

[TOmNossor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And TOm can close the thread if he likes.

Faith demands faith, not reason.  Fideism is the only rational answer I can see.

I have no need to close the thread.

I read through Rory’s thread on New Mormonism.  I think it helped me understand your position better.

I want to explore it some more.  Let me start by saying that my wife would say my hair is brown with some gray.

If you and Rory had lunch with me, would you Rory and I KNOW that my hair is brown and gray?  Would it be true that my hair now in 2018 is brown with some gray?  Does God know that my hair is brown with some gray?

If you and Rory and I had lunch together for months and every day I ordered water with lemon and I told you that I never drink anything other than water with lemon.  Could you know that I would order water with lemon next time we had lunch?  Could you have faith that I would order water with lemon next time we had lunch?  Would this faith be associated with your past experiences of our lunches?  Would it be associated with my profession that I only drink water with lemon?  Or would it be both?

Would it be possible to say that reason and faith directs you to the belief that I will have water and lemon? 

 

Now, you and I agree that God the Father has flesh and bone.  We agree that God can do things that we do not understand.  He can communicate to us interpersonally without speaking words that could be heard by our friends who are sitting next to us in the pew.  But, I would think that we both would reject that God is ultimately unknowable and so transcendent that we only experience His energies.  We can get to know Him. 

 

Can we know what color His hair might be?

Can we observe how He answers our prayers as we have lunch together for months and “hear” Him tell us that He will always meet us for lunch and answer our prayers?  Can we know that he will answer our prayers tomorrow at lunch?  Can we have faith He will answer our prayers tomorrow at lunch?  Would this faith be associated with our past experiences of God at our lunches?  Would this faith be associated with God’s “covenant” with us that He would answer our prayers at our lunches?

Would it be possible to say that reason and faith direct us to the belief that God will answer our prayers at lunch?

 

I hope these questions give you some jumping off point to educated me.  I am still of the opinion that there is a place for “faith and reason.”  I am still of the opinion that folks who do not use faith and reason can retreat to good social action and in the name of love accept all kinds of things. 

Charity, TOm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, TOmNossor said:

“People like me!”  Good gosh! 

This is pure emotion.  TOm is beating up on the kind and loving man California Boy.  This is dehumanizing and is not an argument.  Never mind that I explained I would welcome you to worship with me today AND on a future day when perhaps the church changes its position on SSM (in case you cannot worship with me today because of the current church position).  I also said:

I would bet on you being extraordinary if I gambled and there was a market.

But, I am “people like me.”

You do not have to use reason to arrive at your positions that is ok.  You will win most arguments with most people by using emotion.  You are in fact winning in real life. 

That being said, I am suggesting that members of society at large and members of LDS society should not abandon the evolved or historical or revealed truths associated with the importance of marriage and family for emotional appeals that do not align with rational arguments.  You relying upon emotional appeals makes me think my assessment of this is more likely to be right than I thought before.

Now, probably for the emotional strength of this, you said that I am “so eager to cast gay families as being so inferior to straight families as if straight marriages are so successful over gay marriages.”  If I understand what you have said, then you do not understand the preponderance of evidence (studies that both of us have provided and reasoned arguments) in this thread or what I am trying to say.

My purpose is far more muted and success IMO does not require me to denigrate “gay families as being so inferior.”  Every one of your studies argued that rearing of children in SSM results are no better or worse than non-SSM rearing results.  The studies I sited argued that ON AVERAGE children reared in SSMs have more problems (emotional and other problems) than children reared in a family with their biological mother and father and that these results meet statistical tests to indicate that sample sizes and detected differences are statistically significant.  Furthermore, there is evidence that the methodologies involved in your studies, errors in identifying SSMs (this was a really dopey error done by folks that I cannot think really wanted to present real data), errors in sample size (having a direct impact upon what sort of differences would be statistically significant), and errors in self-selection bias; created the evidence of parity (without these errors the averages differ by statistically significant amounts – not axe killer vs. Mother Teresa amounts, but statistically significant amounts). 

That being said, I told you to be an extraordinary SSM father so that you can achieve parity (or hopefully and LIKELY better than parity, because parity as you point out sucks in all parts of the world), precisely because I do not think of gay families as being SO INFERIOR.

My muted purpose is to argue that the IDEAL is that children are raised by their biological mother and father in a stable home.  My daughter is not part of the ideal, but I will do what I can (and stay out of the way of my wife as she does GREAT things) to help my daughter do better than parity. 

The data from your studies and my studies can only mean that this IDEAL rearing on average (ON AVERAGE) is better for children than SSM rearing.  This is one of the reasons that this rearing by biological mother and father is the ideal.  There are others reasons have nothing to do with church or God that the ideal is as I describe and our studies do not address these.

Furthermore, I suggest that as a society and as a church we should teach the ideal and emphasize the ideal.  We can then make allowances for divorce, adoption, single parent homes, SSA folks who may enter into SSM.  These allowances should be designed to ameliorate potential pitfalls identified when the ideal is not possible/achieved.  But, the IDEAL will not change because nobody lives a perfect life.  “Be ye therefore perfect, eventually,” not “be completely satisfied with less than perfect because perfect is just too hard.” 

I am so unemotional about all of this.  I really do not care that you referred to me derisively as “people like you.”  I wanted to talk about this without causing pain or opening old wounds.  I truly would welcome you into my ward and I will gladly sit next to you now or when/if the CoJCoLDS changes its position on this.  I am sorry for the mistreatment that I expect has happened for you.  I don’t know how your “coming out” affected your life, your parents, and others.  I love my uncle and my nephew and a handful of friends.  My uncle is married and comfortable in his skin, my nephew not so much. I cannot erase hurt and pain, but I know someone who can.  Jesus Christ died for those with SSA and those without SSA.  I hope you find peace and threads like this do not cause you pain in the future.

Charity, TOm

You do realize that every post you have answered has been to try and prove how gay families are inferior to straight marriages and then you freak out that this offends me?  

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

I cannot solve these with word definitions absolutely intact.  I think your case that True vs. analogical in this context creates a conflict.  That something is known with certainty but is obscured seems problematic too.

I will give it a shot.  I think I will lean towards the idea that faith and reason should go together, but I will explore this with you.

JPII might mean:

There are facts that are true that are known.  The way those come to be known is through likening the transcendent with things we experience in our world through analogies.  There are aspects of the Trinity that are known through the image of the 3-leaf clover.  There are aspects of the Trinity that are known through the common Trinity shield, “is God, is God, is God, is not ….”  The Trinity is true and some folks come to know this.  These analogies help express what is known, but like all analogies can be pushed too far. 

TOm says:

I do not actually subscribe to the idea that the Trinity can be known in the human mind because I think if you push to hard you get to violations of the law of non-contradiction, at least if you wish to rule out my views of the Trinity and all the other views that have been declared heretical by the Catholic Church.

 

JPII might mean:

That certainty is a product of faith and contact with God.  That when our rational mind tries to pin down EXACTLY what this certainty is, our human limitations obscure it.  By analogy, you might be certain that you have a powerful beast in the cage, but because a curtain obscures your view you are unsure if it is a lion, tiger or bear.

TOm says:

Not too much.

 

 

I will repeat the quote from Arch Bishop Chaput:

Perhaps I should offer Faith and Rationality.  I think we can think deeply, faithfully, and rigorously about our faith.  I think we “take refuge in humanitarian feelings and social action.”  We immerse ourselves in loving others and subordinate truth to love.  These are things that I was thinking about.

I will reply more to your next post.

Charity, TOm

Thanks!

I agree with you and Chaput.

I would say that faith IS rational- and is it is  a part of acting in such a way which produces "knowledge" .  The pragmatists see "knowledge" not as an objective understanding of "reality as it is" but as a process in which one eventually produces a utilitarian certainty that after experimentation one has found an effective strategy for reaching a goal.

So psychological certainty that certain actions or beliefs produce certain results within a context.

In short the "Pragmatic" view is identical to Alma 32's process of experimentation.  I will quote this even though I know you know it perfectly- but there may be others who do not or do not see the contrast with JPll immediately

Alma 32

Quote

 

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

 

So here we have a very different kind of knowledge of spiritual matters and certainty than presented as the ideal by JPll

But for me it is the answer to the problem which seems insurmountable the way John Paul presents it.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

“People like me!”  Good gosh! 

This is pure emotion.  TOm is beating up on the kind and loving man California Boy.  This is dehumanizing and is not an argument.  Never mind that I explained I would welcome you to worship with me today AND on a future day when perhaps the church changes its position on SSM (in case you cannot worship with me today because of the current church position).  I also said:

I would bet on you being extraordinary if I gambled and there was a market.

But, I am “people like me.”

You do not have to use reason to arrive at your positions that is ok.  You will win most arguments with most people by using emotion.  You are in fact winning in real life. 

That being said, I am suggesting that members of society at large and members of LDS society should not abandon the evolved or historical or revealed truths associated with the importance of marriage and family for emotional appeals that do not align with rational arguments.  You relying upon emotional appeals makes me think my assessment of this is more likely to be right than I thought before.

Now, probably for the emotional strength of this, you said that I am “so eager to cast gay families as being so inferior to straight families as if straight marriages are so successful over gay marriages.”  If I understand what you have said, then you do not understand the preponderance of evidence (studies that both of us have provided and reasoned arguments) in this thread or what I am trying to say.

My purpose is far more muted and success IMO does not require me to denigrate “gay families as being so inferior.”  Every one of your studies argued that rearing of children in SSM results are no better or worse than non-SSM rearing results.  The studies I sited argued that ON AVERAGE children reared in SSMs have more problems (emotional and other problems) than children reared in a family with their biological mother and father and that these results meet statistical tests to indicate that sample sizes and detected differences are statistically significant.  Furthermore, there is evidence that the methodologies involved in your studies, errors in identifying SSMs (this was a really dopey error done by folks that I cannot think really wanted to present real data), errors in sample size (having a direct impact upon what sort of differences would be statistically significant), and errors in self-selection bias; created the evidence of parity (without these errors the averages differ by statistically significant amounts – not axe killer vs. Mother Teresa amounts, but statistically significant amounts). 

That being said, I told you to be an extraordinary SSM father so that you can achieve parity (or hopefully and LIKELY better than parity, because parity as you point out sucks in all parts of the world), precisely because I do not think of gay families as being SO INFERIOR.

My muted purpose is to argue that the IDEAL is that children are raised by their biological mother and father in a stable home.  My daughter is not part of the ideal, but I will do what I can (and stay out of the way of my wife as she does GREAT things) to help my daughter do better than parity. 

The data from your studies and my studies can only mean that this IDEAL rearing on average (ON AVERAGE) is better for children than SSM rearing.  This is one of the reasons that this rearing by biological mother and father is the ideal.  There are others reasons have nothing to do with church or God that the ideal is as I describe and our studies do not address these.

Furthermore, I suggest that as a society and as a church we should teach the ideal and emphasize the ideal.  We can then make allowances for divorce, adoption, single parent homes, SSA folks who may enter into SSM.  These allowances should be designed to ameliorate potential pitfalls identified when the ideal is not possible/achieved.  But, the IDEAL will not change because nobody lives a perfect life.  “Be ye therefore perfect, eventually,” not “be completely satisfied with less than perfect because perfect is just too hard.” 

I am so unemotional about all of this.  I really do not care that you referred to me derisively as “people like you.”  I wanted to talk about this without causing pain or opening old wounds.  I truly would welcome you into my ward and I will gladly sit next to you now or when/if the CoJCoLDS changes its position on this.  I am sorry for the mistreatment that I expect has happened for you.  I don’t know how your “coming out” affected your life, your parents, and others.  I love my uncle and my nephew and a handful of friends.  My uncle is married and comfortable in his skin, my nephew not so much. I cannot erase hurt and pain, but I know someone who can.  Jesus Christ died for those with SSA and those without SSA.  I hope you find peace and threads like this do not cause you pain in the future.

Charity, TOm

You sir are a class act! 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You do realize that every post you have answered has been to try and prove how gay families are inferior to straight marriages and then you freak out that this offends me?  

And every post of yours attacks our values.

This should be about rational argumentation, not being offended.  Offense goes with the territory.  You are talking to apologists here who get insulted a hundred times a day and keep giving rational arguments- or at least trying to 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

I have no need to close the thread.

I read through Rory’s thread on New Mormonism.  I think it helped me understand your position better.

I want to explore it some more.  Let me start by saying that my wife would say my hair is brown with some gray.

If you and Rory had lunch with me, would you Rory and I KNOW that my hair is brown and gray?  Would it be true that my hair now in 2018 is brown with some gray?  Does God know that my hair is brown with some gray?

If you and Rory and I had lunch together for months and every day I ordered water with lemon and I told you that I never drink anything other than water with lemon.  Could you know that I would order water with lemon next time we had lunch?  Could you have faith that I would order water with lemon next time we had lunch?  Would this faith be associated with your past experiences of our lunches?  Would it be associated with my profession that I only drink water with lemon?  Or would it be both?

Would it be possible to say that reason and faith directs you to the belief that I will have water and lemon? 

 

Now, you and I agree that God the Father has flesh and bone.  We agree that God can do things that we do not understand.  He can communicate to us interpersonally without speaking words that could be heard by our friends who are sitting next to us in the pew.  But, I would think that we both would reject that God is ultimately unknowable and so transcendent that we only experience His energies.  We can get to know Him. 

 

Can we know what color His hair might be?

Can we observe how He answers our prayers as we have lunch together for months and “hear” Him tell us that He will always meet us for lunch and answer our prayers?  Can we know that he will answer our prayers tomorrow at lunch?  Can we have faith He will answer our prayers tomorrow at lunch?  Would this faith be associated with our past experiences of God at our lunches?  Would this faith be associated with God’s “covenant” with us that He would answer our prayers at our lunches?

Would it be possible to say that reason and faith direct us to the belief that God will answer our prayers at lunch?

 

I hope these questions give you some jumping off point to educated me.  I am still of the opinion that there is a place for “faith and reason.”  I am still of the opinion that folks who do not use faith and reason can retreat to good social action and in the name of love accept all kinds of things. 

Charity, TOm

The fast answer to all your questions is "yes"

The problem here is Cartesian dualism- the distinction between appearances and "essences" or even faith and reason as if these linguistic distinctions are "real"

We are so steeped in western culture and neoplatonism that it is hard to rid ourselves of these notions which do not stand up to rigorous examinination

Read my siggy and see if it makes sense to you, and let me know what the Rorty quote seems to be saying to you, please.

Remember that all language- these very sentences - cannot capture reality as we see it

Imagine describing the color red to someone who is blind and has not experienced it.  It cannot be done

Reality is direct experience and cannot be put into words.  Red is real- and is a good example.  The color of your hair is real and is a good example.

The problem is the jump to language.  Is your hair "really" grayish brown or brownish gray?  Which of those description is "true"?   Is the other therefore "false"?

The traditional view is that true language "corresponds" to reality but the problem is that language NEVER "corresponds" to reality except in very simple ways.

The word "truth" cannot be defined for that reason- IF one believes that true statements "correspond to reality"

Take any sentence about the Trinity.   How could one know if any possible sentence about the trinity was "true" or "false"?  How could one get "outside" the words to check the reality to see if the words correspond to the reality?

Again- back to appearances vs reality.  It is an unintelligible distinction once one thinks about it

Is a red car "really red" or does it just "appear" to be red?   How could one ever know that??  One would have to get "outside" the appearance of red in order to see the car "as it is", check to see if it is "really red" and then confirm if the use of the word?

The idea is unintelligible.  It is really red "as it is"- it makes no sense to even ask the question if it is really red!

Does God "really" communicate with me when I pray?  How could I check that to see if it is "really" God with whom I am communicating?   The question is just as unintelligible as questioning if the car is "really red"

Language confuses everything.

What is an essence of anything?  How do you check what the "essence" is vs the "appearance" when all you can see is appearances?

All of these ideas are established in contemporary philosophy and could be cited as arguments etc if required.

Perhaps this could help?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

Quote

 

1.1 Metaphysical and Semantic Versions

In medieval authors we find a division between “metaphysical” and “semantic” versions of the correspondence theory. The former are indebted to the truth-as-likeness theme suggested by Aristotle’s overall views, the latter are modeled on Aristotle’s more austere definition from Metaphysics 1011b25.

The metaphysical version presented by Thomas Aquinas is the best known: “Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus” (Truth is the equation of thing and intellect), which he restates as: “A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality”. He tends to use “conformitas” and “adaequatio”, but also uses “correspondentia”, giving the latter a more generic sense (De Veritate, Q.1, A.1-3; cf. Summa Theologiae, Q.16). Aquinas credits the Neoplatonist Isaac Israeli with this definition, but there is no such definition in Isaac. Correspondence formulations can be traced back to the Academic skeptic Carneades, 2nd century B.C., whom Sextus Empiricus (Adversos Mathematicos, vii, 168) reports as having taught that a presentation “is true when it is in accord (symphonos) with the object presented, and false when it is in discord with it”. Similar accounts can be found in various early commentators on Plato and Aristotle (cf. Künne 2003, chap. 3.1), including some Neoplatonists: Proklos (In Tim., II 287, 1) speaks of truth as the agreement or adjustment (epharmoge) between knower and the known. Philoponus (In Cat., 81, 25-34) emphasizes that truth is neither in the things or states of affairs (pragmata) themselves, nor in the statement itself, but lies in the agreement between the two. He gives the simile of the fitting shoe, the fit consisting in a relation between shoe and foot, not to be found in either one by itself. Note that his emphasis on the relation as opposed to its relata is laudable but potentially misleading, because x’s truth (its being true) is not to be identified with a relation, R, between x and y, but with a general relational property of x, taking the form (∃y)(xRy & Fy). Further early correspondence formulations can be found in Avicenna (Metaphysica, 1.8-9) and Averroes (Tahafut, 103, 302). They were introduced to the scholastics by William of Auxerre, who may have been the intended recipient of Aquinas’ mistaken attribution (cf. Boehner 1958; Wolenski 1994).

Aquinas’ balanced formula “equation of thing and intellect” is intended to leave room for the idea that “true” can be applied not only to thoughts and judgments but also to things or persons (e.g. a true friend). Aquinas explains that a thought is said to be true because it conforms to reality, whereas a thing or person is said to be true because it conforms to a thought (a friend is true insofar as, and because, she conforms to our, or God’s, conception of what a friend ought to be). Medieval theologians regarded both, judgment-truth as well as thing/person-truth, as somehow flowing from, or grounded in, the deepest truth which, according to the Bible, is God: “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14, 6). Their attempts to integrate this Biblical passage with more ordinary thinking involving truth gave rise to deep metaphysico-theological reflections. The notion of thing/person-truth, which thus played a very important role in medieval thinking, is disregarded by modern and contemporary analytic philosophers but survives to some extent in existentialist and continental philosophy.

Medieval authors who prefer a semantic version of the correspondence theory often use a peculiarly truncated formula to render Aristotle’s definition: A (mental) sentence is true if and only if, as it signifies, so it is (sicut significat, ita est). This emphasizes the semantic relation of signification while remaining maximally elusive about what the “it” is that is signified by a true sentence and de-emphasizing the correspondence relation (putting it into the little words “as” and “so”). Foreshadowing a favorite approach of the 20th century, medieval semanticists like Ockham (Summa Logicae, II) and Buridan (Sophismata, II) give exhaustive lists of different truth-conditional clauses for sentences of different grammatical categories. They refrain from associating true sentences in general with items from a single ontological category. (Cf. Moody 1953; Adams McCord 1987; Perler 2006.)

Authors of the modern period generally convey the impression that the correspondence theory of truth is far too obvious to merit much, or any, discussion. Brief statements of some version or other can be found in almost all major writers; see e.g.: Descartes 1639, ATII 597; Spinoza, Ethics, axiom vi; Locke, Essay, 4.5.1; Leibniz, New Essays, 4.5.2; Hume, Treatise, 3.1.1; and Kant 1787, B82. Berkeley, who does not seem to offer any account of truth, is a potentially significant exception. Due to the influence of Thomism, metaphysical versions of the theory are much more popular with the moderns than semantic versions. But since the moderns generally subscribe to a representational theory of the mind (the theory of ideas), they would seem to be ultimately committed to spelling out relations like correspondence or conformity in terms of a psycho-semantic representation relation holding between ideas, or sentential sequences of ideas (Locke’s “mental propositions”), and appropriate portions of reality, thereby effecting a merger between metaphysical and semantic versions of the correspondence theory.

 

This is roughly JPll's view.  Note that it is founded in ancient philosophy which has advanced in my opinion

This is roughly my view, from the same article

Quote

 

8.4 Deflationism About Truth

At present the most noticeable competitors to correspondence theories are deflationaryaccounts of truth (or ‘true’). Deflationists maintain that correspondence theories need to be deflated; that their central notions, correspondence and fact (and their relatives), play no legitimate role in an adequate account of truth and can be excised without loss. A correspondence-type formulation like

(5) “Snow is white” is true iff it corresponds to the fact that snow is white,

is to be deflated to

(6) “Snow is white” is true iff snow is white,

which, according to deflationists, says all there is to be said about the truth of “Snow is white”, without superfluous embellishments (cf. Quine 1987, p. 213).

Correspondence theorists protest that (6) cannot lead to anything deserving to be regarded as an account of truth. It is concerned with only one particular sentence (“Snow is white”), and it resists generalization. (6) is a substitution instance of the schema

(7) “p” is true iff p,

which does not actually say anything itself (it is not truth-evaluable) and cannot be turned into a genuine generalization about truth, because of its essential reliance on the schematic letter “p”, a mere placeholder. The attempt to turn (7) into a generalization produces nonsense along the lines of “For every x, “x” is true iff x”, or requires invocation of truth: “Every substitution instance of the schema ““p” is true iff p” is true”. Moreover, no genuine generalizations about truth can be accounted for on the basis of (7). Correspondence definitions, on the other hand, do yield genuine generalizations about truth. Note that definitions like (1) and (2) in Section 3 employ ordinary objectual variables (not mere schematic placeholders); the definitions are easily turned into genuine generalizations by prefixing the quantifier phrase “For every x”, which is customarily omitted in formulations intended as definitions.

It should be noted that the deflationist’s starting point, (5), which lends itself to deflating excisions, actually misrepresents the correspondence theory. According to (5), corresponding to the fact that snow is white is sufficient and necessary for “Snow is white” to be true. Yet, according to (1) and (2), it is sufficient but not necessary: “Snow is white” will be true as long as it corresponds to some fact or other. The genuine article, (1) or (2), is not as easily deflated as the impostor (5).

The debate turns crucially on the question whether anything deserving to be called an “account” or “theory” of truth ought to take the form of a genuine generalization (and ought to be able to account for genuine generalizations involving truth). Correspondence theorists tend to regard this as a (minimal) requirement. Deflationists argue that truth is a shallow (sometimes “logical”) notion—a notion that has no serious explanatory role to play: as such it does not require a full-fledged account, a real theory, that would have to take the form of a genuine generalization.

There is now a substantial body of literature on truth-deflationism in general and its relation to the correspondence theory in particular; the following is a small selection: Quine 1970, 1987; Devitt 1984; Field 1986; Horwich 1990 & 19982; Kirkham 1992; Gupta 1993; David 1994, 2008; Schmitt 1995; Künne 2003, chap. 4; Rami 2009. Relevant essays are contained in Blackburn and Simmons 1999; Schantz 2002; Armour-Garb and Beall 2005; and Wright and Pedersen 2010. See also the entry the deflationary theory of truth in this encyclopedia.

 

This view is that the WORD "truth" is undefinable

We can use it correctly, everyone knows what it means, but there is no one way to define the word which will capture all its uses and implications, so it just makes sense to not worry about it

We know what "I know the church is true" means in a sacrament meeting

It means "I know the church teaches true principles, which have changed my life" roughly- not that there is a way to check to see if the description of the Godhead corresponds to reality better than the description of the Trinity does.

One cannot go out there and look at the Trinity and check it out and say, "No, I 'd say it looks more like a Trinity than a Godhead"- the fact that we cannot do that makes the truth of the question a moot point

The criterion of what makes each view true in its context is how it works in the overall theory or paradigm to allow the concept of three unified persons who act as one,  intelligible 

Edited February 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And every post of yours attacks our values.

This should be about rational argumentation, not being offended.  Offense goes with the territory.  You are talking to apologists here who get insulted a hundred times a day and keep giving rational arguments- or at least trying to 

Yes I.  Do sometimes challenge some Mormon beliefs as being unjust. But I have always full supported Mormons right to treat those in its church however it wishes. That is a big difference than trying to devalue others families as being inferior. Have I ever attacked Mormon families and called them inferior?   

Edited February 28, 2018 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes I.  Do sometimes challenge some Mormon beliefs as being unjust. But I have always full supported Mormons right to treat those in its church however it wishes. That is a big difference than trying to devalue others families as being inferior. Have I ever attacked Mormon families and called them inferior?   

You miss the point.

Bye.

[stemelbow]

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:42 PM, TOmNossor said:

Thank you.  I can respond to that.  I hope this does not solely become a SSM thread, but I do think it is a prime example of people using emotion without reason.

I was once someone who reluctantly supported the church’s view of SSM but without any passion or certainty.  This is a wonderful piece of same sex marriage propaganda and I really enjoyed it and felt deeply for the fictitious characters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ROXTFfkcfo&feature=youtu.be

If you refuse to return to a reasoning position after watching it, please do not.  I truly feel for that little girl.  I love her and I hate what those homosexual jerks did to her.  I wish to never be part of the jerks!

That being said, my mind has CHANGED from where I once was.  It was in part due to Rabbi Sacks and some other interaction with Catholic thought that I became a CONVINCED by reason in the church’s position.  

SSM is one of the more obvious areas in which I think society is busy inviting folks to love without truth.

Most of society atheist or not believes that woman (and men) should not be sexual toys devoid of humanity.  Sex trafficking is wrong!
Much of society believes that prostitution and pornography is wrong.
I think it very defendable that for the same reason that sex trafficking devalues woman (and men) removing their humanity to make them play objects, so does prostitution and pornography.  So does sex for entertainment on primetime TV.  So does teenage sex for fun and conquest.  So does sex for advertising on billboards and in magazines.

There is a small additional problem with human trafficking absent in SOME of the “lesser” offenses against the full humanity of those sold for sex.  That is that human trafficking entails zero choice and the rest of these MAY entail some aspects or most aspects of choice.  Some will celebrate the freedom of the willing prostitute and the porno star.  Many of us will celebrate the “hot” news anchor or the buff shampoo model.  But, I submit part of the problem with Weinstein’s sexual exploits is that he paid for sex in ways that make us uncomfortable and his job was to select sex workers in ways that make us comfortable.  I do not think this is too much of a leap.  Those who "let" Weinstein do what he did, made a choice.  Then they didn't talk about it.  We all think this is wrong.

This is my emotional plea to see that attitudes about sex in our society are profoundly distorted.

Let me try some reason:
Wether you believe in God or godless evolution, humanity is at the top of the earthen peeking order.  All species survive through reproduction.  Above a certain level of complexity this reproduction is sexual.  Above a higher level of complexity this reproduction includes child rearing.  Many species leave the child rearing to a single parent usually the female.  Some (generally ones with more complex development) include both the male and the female in child rearing.

Numerous studies have shown that human child rearing in a stable home with a man and a woman who are raising their biological offspring is better for child development.  This is the ideal.

For the human child this is more important than for the mouse or the dog.  Human’s are in general far more helpless for far longer than lower animals.  The human brain is so large, human babies must be born at a less developed stage due to passing through the birth canal so they require more physical care than most other animals.
In addition this human social interaction requires rearing with love and touch (see Russian orphanage studies).  Human mental development requires much more support than for lower animals.

The reason (wether it is God or evolution) that sex developed and produce the bonding effects that same sex couples covet is to facilitate the continuation of the species.

Sex is unitive and procreative.

Sex is unitive and procreative.

Sex is unitive and procreative.

To engage in sex without acknowledging its purpose either because an opposite sex couple NEVER wants children or because one is “just having a good time” is to psychically cleave the human person be removing either the unitive or procreative aspects of sex developed evolutionarily or through God’s hand.  The consequence of this are legion.

The evils of sex trafficking.  The likely evils of prostitution and pornography.  The breakdown of the stable family.  The kids who grow up without touch or without love or without a solid role model and all the damage this does to our society.

I have adopted my daughter and I cannot express how wonderful this is.  But this is not the ideal.  The ideal would be for her biological parents to have made different choices (probably different choices long before she was conceived as they were quite in bondage by then).  As a society and as a church we should teach the ideal is the ideal and do the best we can when we and/or those around us fall short.  Love is the guiding force, but reason is important too.

The above set of ideas is why I am no longer a reluctant supporter of the Prophet of God’s position.  I love that little girl in that youtube video just like I love my family and friends who because of their SSA and choices have experienced similar things in the world we live in.  I am emotionally pulled toward them and never march up to them and say, “you are a dirty breeder” or you “just a homosexual.”  But as best I can tell reason indicates to me that the church’s position of SSM marriage is correct.
And, it the other side of this question seems to be largely about compassion for those with same sex attraction.  It is an emotional appeal.  Compelling, yes, but primarily emotion.

I like to compare the way we treat folks with SSA with the way we treat folks with Aspergers syndrome.  One who has Aspergers does not pick up well on social queues.  They feel estranged from the humans.  Coping mechanisms are isolation or superficial interaction (like on message boards).  But councilors do not tell those with Aspergers that they were “made that way” and should not enter into deep and meaningful relationships.  This is because those with Aspergers need love too.  If they can overcome their desire for isolation/safety and learn coping mechanisms that enable them to form meaningful relationships, they will have MORE happiness than if they choose isolation.  Since as a society we do not worship peculiar social queues and … like we worship sex there is not a prevalent move within psychiatry to create isolated bubbles for those with Aspergers.
I do not think we are in a society that can ask those with SSA to enter into loving heterosexual relationships.  This is not a pragmatic solution for most.  But we can still teach that this is not the ideal and this is not marriage.  Or maybe this is no longer pragmatic either.
The evidence of problems for folks who embrace a homosexual lifestyle MAY be only due to the horrible way they are treated, but it seems unlikely.   I think a very reasoned position is that there would be challenges for those with SSA who entered into heterosexual relationships, but if society had not departed from a right understanding of sex these challenges would be less than the challenges they face in the most accepting of societies today.  If I lived in that youtube video and believed President Rachael M. Nelson was the prophetess with the same conviction I believe now, I would give it a shot (I know many on both sides would not).  Still for most in our society attraction and sex are too important for them to embrace a partner that is of the wrong sex in their mind.  That boat sailed long ago.

So, that is LONG.  I am sure there are issues here and there and I am not sure I can demonstrate every piece of data is accurate, but I lean in the direction that overall it is a reasoned view as contrasted to the emotional view I am invited to embrace.

Charity, TOm

Hey TOm.  I'm not sure what kind of discussion you are looking for.  You seem to want reason as opposed to emotion, then you supply for me nothing but emotional appeals in your effort to say the Church is right regarding SSM.  It seems to me your position is based on you guessing that the Church is right and you feel it is right because of things like, people used this girl to make a point in a video which you didn't like.  

In the end, I just don't buy the assumption that the Church is right, based on the Church is saying it's right, or some Catholic guy saying it's right, or you saying you are right because you say so.  It seems to me we're each left guessing which side is right and we're deciding on that based on whatever we want to be our basis.  Years ago, I decided to choose in favor of supporting SSM because I simply could not choose a position that was opposed to others when I did not have any other reason to doubt that by supporting them, they would thrive.  I've been very pleased with the results I've seen and continue to hope that I will learn so much from others it is so worth it to support, encourage, appreciate others.  

[mfbukowski]

On 2/26/2018 at 12:42 PM, TOmNossor said:

Thank you.  I can respond to that.  I hope this does not solely become a SSM thread, but I do think it is a prime example of people using emotion without reason.

I was once someone who reluctantly supported the church’s view of SSM but without any passion or certainty.  This is a wonderful piece of same sex marriage propaganda and I really enjoyed it and felt deeply for the fictitious characters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ROXTFfkcfo&feature=youtu.be

If you refuse to return to a reasoning position after watching it, please do not.  I truly feel for that little girl.  I love her and I hate what those homosexual jerks did to her.  I wish to never be part of the jerks!

That being said, my mind has CHANGED from where I once was.  It was in part due to Rabbi Sacks and some other interaction with Catholic thought that I became a CONVINCED by reason in the church’s position.  

SSM is one of the more obvious areas in which I think society is busy inviting folks to love without truth.

Most of society atheist or not believes that woman (and men) should not be sexual toys devoid of humanity.  Sex trafficking is wrong!
Much of society believes that prostitution and pornography is wrong.
I think it very defendable that for the same reason that sex trafficking devalues woman (and men) removing their humanity to make them play objects, so does prostitution and pornography.  So does sex for entertainment on primetime TV.  So does teenage sex for fun and conquest.  So does sex for advertising on billboards and in magazines.

There is a small additional problem with human trafficking absent in SOME of the “lesser” offenses against the full humanity of those sold for sex.  That is that human trafficking entails zero choice and the rest of these MAY entail some aspects or most aspects of choice.  Some will celebrate the freedom of the willing prostitute and the porno star.  Many of us will celebrate the “hot” news anchor or the buff shampoo model.  But, I submit part of the problem with Weinstein’s sexual exploits is that he paid for sex in ways that make us uncomfortable and his job was to select sex workers in ways that make us comfortable.  I do not think this is too much of a leap.  Those who "let" Weinstein do what he did, made a choice.  Then they didn't talk about it.  We all think this is wrong.

This is my emotional plea to see that attitudes about sex in our society are profoundly distorted.

Let me try some reason:
Wether you believe in God or godless evolution, humanity is at the top of the earthen peeking order.  All species survive through reproduction.  Above a certain level of complexity this reproduction is sexual.  Above a higher level of complexity this reproduction includes child rearing.  Many species leave the child rearing to a single parent usually the female.  Some (generally ones with more complex development) include both the male and the female in child rearing.

Numerous studies have shown that human child rearing in a stable home with a man and a woman who are raising their biological offspring is better for child development.  This is the ideal.

For the human child this is more important than for the mouse or the dog.  Human’s are in general far more helpless for far longer than lower animals.  The human brain is so large, human babies must be born at a less developed stage due to passing through the birth canal so they require more physical care than most other animals.
In addition this human social interaction requires rearing with love and touch (see Russian orphanage studies).  Human mental development requires much more support than for lower animals.

The reason (wether it is God or evolution) that sex developed and produce the bonding effects that same sex couples covet is to facilitate the continuation of the species.

Sex is unitive and procreative.

Sex is unitive and procreative.

Sex is unitive and procreative.

To engage in sex without acknowledging its purpose either because an opposite sex couple NEVER wants children or because one is “just having a good time” is to psychically cleave the human person be removing either the unitive or procreative aspects of sex developed evolutionarily or through God’s hand.  The consequence of this are legion.

The evils of sex trafficking.  The likely evils of prostitution and pornography.  The breakdown of the stable family.  The kids who grow up without touch or without love or without a solid role model and all the damage this does to our society.

I have adopted my daughter and I cannot express how wonderful this is.  But this is not the ideal.  The ideal would be for her biological parents to have made different choices (probably different choices long before she was conceived as they were quite in bondage by then).  As a society and as a church we should teach the ideal is the ideal and do the best we can when we and/or those around us fall short.  Love is the guiding force, but reason is important too.

The above set of ideas is why I am no longer a reluctant supporter of the Prophet of God’s position.  I love that little girl in that youtube video just like I love my family and friends who because of their SSA and choices have experienced similar things in the world we live in.  I am emotionally pulled toward them and never march up to them and say, “you are a dirty breeder” or you “just a homosexual.”  But as best I can tell reason indicates to me that the church’s position of SSM marriage is correct.
And, it the other side of this question seems to be largely about compassion for those with same sex attraction.  It is an emotional appeal.  Compelling, yes, but primarily emotion.

I like to compare the way we treat folks with SSA with the way we treat folks with Aspergers syndrome.  One who has Aspergers does not pick up well on social queues.  They feel estranged from the humans.  Coping mechanisms are isolation or superficial interaction (like on message boards).  But councilors do not tell those with Aspergers that they were “made that way” and should not enter into deep and meaningful relationships.  This is because those with Aspergers need love too.  If they can overcome their desire for isolation/safety and learn coping mechanisms that enable them to form meaningful relationships, they will have MORE happiness than if they choose isolation.  Since as a society we do not worship peculiar social queues and … like we worship sex there is not a prevalent move within psychiatry to create isolated bubbles for those with Aspergers.
I do not think we are in a society that can ask those with SSA to enter into loving heterosexual relationships.  This is not a pragmatic solution for most.  But we can still teach that this is not the ideal and this is not marriage.  Or maybe this is no longer pragmatic either.
The evidence of problems for folks who embrace a homosexual lifestyle MAY be only due to the horrible way they are treated, but it seems unlikely.   I think a very reasoned position is that there would be challenges for those with SSA who entered into heterosexual relationships, but if society had not departed from a right understanding of sex these challenges would be less than the challenges they face in the most accepting of societies today.  If I lived in that youtube video and believed President Rachael M. Nelson was the prophetess with the same conviction I believe now, I would give it a shot (I know many on both sides would not).  Still for most in our society attraction and sex are too important for them to embrace a partner that is of the wrong sex in their mind.  That boat sailed long ago.

So, that is LONG.  I am sure there are issues here and there and I am not sure I can demonstrate every piece of data is accurate, but I lean in the direction that overall it is a reasoned view as contrasted to the emotional view I am invited to embrace.

Charity, TOm

Though I personally do not want to get into it, I think this really captures it as a reasonable argument against ssm.  So this will be my only post here on that subject.

I also see the evolution question as a kind of secular proxy for a "natural law" argument, which combined with an accepted norm for moral values that goes back philosophically at least to Kant.  Kant would say that a moral maxim has to be universifiable and applicable to all mankind to test if it is a "true" moral principle. 

In other words Kant teaches what everyone's mother already knows when she says "What if EVERYONE did that??"

Kant uses that principle to get to his "categorical imperative" - the highest moral law possible in his thinking- which is essentially that every moral principle ought to be able to be made universal for all mankind.  So when he states the categorical imperative, to simplify it, it is essentially the golden rule- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but then he makes it a universal maxim- the highest good then is to ALWAYS and everywhere do unto others as you would have them do unto you.   That is a simpification, but it will do.

Now combine that with evolution as an alternate to "natural law"

One might argue that the golden rule "evolved" to give us peaceful societies which lead to more children being born since a peaceful society is required for child rearing.  So the golden rule has "survival value" for humanity regardless of one's religious beliefs, and can be held to be universally "true" as  a belief which "always works" or has utilitarian value for all human societies. 

So the question for me is - how does homosexuality have "survival value" for the human race in general, and "What if everyone acted that way"?  How could humanity survive?

So on one hand it doesn't work for evolution and it does not work either as a universal value, which means, as they say on one of my favorite TV shows, "Shark Tank", "I'm OUT" on the question of ssm.

 

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Though I personally do not want to get into it, I think this really captures it as a reasonable argument against ssm.  So this will be my only post here on that subject.

I also see the evolution question as a kind of secular proxy for a "natural law" argument, which combined with an accepted norm for moral values that goes back philosophically at least to Kant.  Kant would say that a moral maxim has to be universifiable and applicable to all mankind to test if it is a "true" moral principle. 

In other words Kant teaches what everyone's mother already knows when she says "What if EVERYONE did that??"

 

What if everyone were a philosopher? We'd all starve to death within the year. Specialization is the key to our success.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

I have no need to close the thread.

I read through Rory’s thread on New Mormonism.  I think it helped me understand your position better.

I want to explore it some more.  Let me start by saying that my wife would say my hair is brown with some gray.

If you and Rory had lunch with me, would you Rory and I KNOW that my hair is brown and gray?  Would it be true that my hair now in 2018 is brown with some gray?  Does God know that my hair is brown with some gray?

If you and Rory and I had lunch together for months and every day I ordered water with lemon and I told you that I never drink anything other than water with lemon.  Could you know that I would order water with lemon next time we had lunch?  Could you have faith that I would order water with lemon next time we had lunch?  Would this faith be associated with your past experiences of our lunches?  Would it be associated with my profession that I only drink water with lemon?  Or would it be both?

Would it be possible to say that reason and faith directs you to the belief that I will have water and lemon? 

 

Now, you and I agree that God the Father has flesh and bone.  We agree that God can do things that we do not understand.  He can communicate to us interpersonally without speaking words that could be heard by our friends who are sitting next to us in the pew.  But, I would think that we both would reject that God is ultimately unknowable and so transcendent that we only experience His energies.  We can get to know Him. 

 

Can we know what color His hair might be?

Can we observe how He answers our prayers as we have lunch together for months and “hear” Him tell us that He will always meet us for lunch and answer our prayers?  Can we know that he will answer our prayers tomorrow at lunch?  Can we have faith He will answer our prayers tomorrow at lunch?  Would this faith be associated with our past experiences of God at our lunches?  Would this faith be associated with God’s “covenant” with us that He would answer our prayers at our lunches?

Would it be possible to say that reason and faith direct us to the belief that God will answer our prayers at lunch?

 

I hope these questions give you some jumping off point to educated me.  I am still of the opinion that there is a place for “faith and reason.”  I am still of the opinion that folks who do not use faith and reason can retreat to good social action and in the name of love accept all kinds of things. 

Charity, TOm

OK now I will spend a little time on each question and show you how "yes" is the answer to all of them individually.

Quote

If you and Rory had lunch with me, would you Rory and I KNOW that my hair is brown and gray?  Would it be true that my hair now in 2018 is brown with some gray?  Does God know that my hair is brown with some gray?

Absolutely God knows every thought you think, hears every prayer and as it says in scripture, knows every hair of your head!

And yes we would know with certainty which hairs were gray and which were brown and could in principle do a "hair census" and count them all and let you know the exact percentage of which was what.

How would we "know"?  Because appearance IS reality FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES except in certain situations where we are "wrong" like optical illusions etc. Sometimes those perceptual errors can be fatal.  You crawl across the desert sands and find that you were going after a mirage.  You miss-see something and drive off the cliff.

Oh well.     That perception didn't work for you, did it?    You acted in faith believing that there was no cliff and oops- there was. 

But that fact does not require an entire metphysics bifurcating "appearances" from "reality" and making the existence of a cliff the "essence of cliffness" as opposed to the "appearance of cliffness"  That bifurcation is essentially Platonism and the belief that the Trinity is three persons in one "substance" which is undefinable.  It leads to the idea that the "appearance" of bread can be sustained while changing its "substance" to flesh. 

It also leads to the idea of changing the "appearance" of lead into gold while retaining the same metallic "substance" .  This is the problem with Scholasticism - the bifurcation of reality into appearance vs substance, and is the problem with Fides et Ratio which retains that bifurcation of "reality as it is" from the "appearance" of reality.

Pragmatism - and Continental Phenomenology does away with this distinction.

So now how does this help religious views?  If appearances are "real" because they are direct experience, then visions are "real" and testimonies, the "burning in the bosom" is also "real" at least for the individual.

Do others perceive MY testimony experience or my visions, or even my perception of the color called "red"?

No not possible.

Imagine our lunch counting your gray hairs.    While we are counting, I see a pink elephant with wings fly through the room!  What is the first thing I would do?  I would shout "What the &%$#???  Did YOU SEE THAT??"

What would be the philosophical purpose of that utterance?  It would be to linguistically call for "verification" - in language, making the request a social construct- verifying the "objective reality" of the flying pink elephant.

Suppose everyone in the restaurant jumps up and starts pointing in the direction in which the flying pink elephant disappeared, talking excitedly.

Their behavior confirms to ME that what I saw was "real".   Multiple people have had the same experience which was for each indiviudual "subjective"- but using language and gestures which is also language- we have compared and "verified" our individual experiences with each other socially making it possible to utter a "true" sentence that "A pink elephant just flew through the room"

On the other hand, IF after asking the question "Did YOU SEE THAT??" I see dumb stares and quizzical looks, and you say, "Uh, sorry- what are you talking about?" I will have verified that my experience was totally "subjective" and therefore NOT able to be "objectively verified"

Yet is "true"  that I saw a pink elephant.  That "vision" may change my life, if it was the Virgin Mary I saw and not a pink elephant.  FOR ME it was totally REAL, as real as seeing the color red- it was a raw experience NOT COMMUNICATIBLE in language and not objectively verifiable 

THAT is the problem with Fides et Ratio.

Religious experiences are always private experiences, and are as real as anything else for the person having them.  JPll is looking for verification of private experiences to make them "true" and that is impossible in principle.  

Can't be done, because YOU will never SEE through my eyes.   Now if you want to say that that makes truth "relative" fine, but it RETAINS the idea that visions and religious experience is REAL, as real as anything any of us see from minute to minute.

No they are not shared experiences- BY DEFINITION- that is what makes them "private" and also "sacred".

So for me it is almost profane to request that I show others my private experiences.  THAT is what we mean by "too sacred to talk about".  It is like getting naked in front of a stranger- and this also relates to your objectification point about sex.  Those things are only to be shared with a very select few IF ANY.

Most importantly these private experiences are what make my life MEANINGFUL.  We use private experiences in everything we do in expressing values- as the ssm part of this thread shows perfectly.  We consult "our gut" in determining whom to marry, why to marry or not marry, where to go to school. whether or not we should worry about global warming, what church makes sense and what church does not make sense, and so on.

Those are all parts of each individual's "private reality" which I see in an LDS context as "taking matter unorganized and creating out world" out of private experience

So sorry JPll, I disagree that these private experiences can be anything BUT emotional and relative, involving what becomes "sweet" to me and sacred to me.  The mere fact that YOU do not have MY experiences makes every one of them "RELATIVE" to me and therefore NOT "objective"

There can BE no "objective truth" of anything we experience about God.

And THAT is exactly the problem of Scholasticism and at least the philosophical reason I could never again be Catholic unless I ignored the philosophy which would be impossivle for me,

Quote

 

If you and Rory and I had lunch together for months and every day I ordered water with lemon and I told you that I never drink anything other than water with lemon.  Could you know that I would order water with lemon next time we had lunch?  Could you have faith that I would order water with lemon next time we had lunch?  Would this faith be associated with your past experiences of our lunches?  Would it be associated with my profession that I only drink water with lemon?  Or would it be both?

 

Yes.  Both.

Quote

 

Would it be possible to say that reason and faith directs you to the belief that I will have water and lemon? 

 

Yes and in fact that is a very Alma 32 question.  We would have observed it and if we cared enough  - perhaps as your wife might want to please you by kindly bringing you your water- the belief would be "sweet" to us.  By experiment she would have known she served you well in a small way by bringing you your lemon and water, and that would give her pleasure in serving you with a kind gesture.

Quote

 

Now, you and I agree that God the Father has flesh and bone.  We agree that God can do things that we do not understand.  He can communicate to us interpersonally without speaking words that could be heard by our friends who are sitting next to us in the pew.  But, I would think that we both would reject that God is ultimately unknowable and so transcendent that we only experience His energies.  We can get to know Him. 

 

Yes on an intimate basis as our Father.

It drives me nuts when in church someone says "God knows your name" as if it is some great thing.  He dang well better know a lot more about me than my name if he is my Father!

I think that goes back to the days of polygamy when that was a big deal perhaps, knowing kid number 53's name was a big deal.    But my God knows every hair on my head and every thought- how else could I utter a silent prayer in a time of temptation or in a crisis?   He must be in constant communication through the spirit- or however He does it- or I could not worship Him.

Quote

 

Can we know what color His hair might be?

Can we observe how He answers our prayers as we have lunch together for months and “hear” Him tell us that He will always meet us for lunch and answer our prayers?  Can we know that he will answer our prayers tomorrow at lunch?  Can we have faith He will answer our prayers tomorrow at lunch?  Would this faith be associated with our past experiences of God at our lunches?  Would this faith be associated with God’s “covenant” with us that He would answer our prayers at our lunches?

Would it be possible to say that reason and faith direct us to the belief that God will answer our prayers at lunch?

 

Yes, perfectly and exactly for all!

Quote

 

I hope these questions give you some jumping off point to educated me.  I am still of the opinion that there is a place for “faith and reason.”  I am still of the opinion that folks who do not use faith and reason can retreat to good social action and in the name of love accept all kinds of things. 

Charity, TOm

 

I see nothing wrong with those words IF and only IF they are talking about an ALMA 32 kind of faith and reason based on experiment with the spirit and finding the truth "sweet"

If they are looking for "objective TRVTH"- in letters carved in stone in a Greek  Platonic Temple about the creator of the universe who knows things we cannot possibly know, I think that would be nonsense

Hope that helps. 

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

What if everyone were a philosopher? We'd all starve to death within the year. Specialization is the key to our success.

Not if one was also a real estate investor.    It would drive prices sky high!!  Yummy!

Agreed as long as we don't have specialized moralities.  

If yours includes murder for fun, it might not work for others.

Edited February 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not if one was also a real estate investor.    It would drive prices sky high!!  Yummy!

Agreed as long as we don't have specialized moralities.  

If yours includes murder for fun, it might not work for others.

Sure. I hate to even get into it because we don't need gay marriage thread #5324324, but gay marriage isn't a specialized morality, any more than interracial marriage is a specialized morality. Same morality, applied more broadly. Celibacy and mixed orientation marriage would be examples of specialized moralities.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Gray

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

You do realize that every post you have answered has been to try and prove how gay families are inferior to straight marriages and then you freak out that this offends me?  

Of course it does. In the same way Mormons get defensive about studies showing those in Utah take a lot of depression meds. It is why studies like these are borderline useless. There was an explosion a couple of years back over a study by ethnic group about parenting success. It was data but the data was accused of reinforcing stereotypes and all kinds of people were offended and some hate groups felt vindicated.

I offer no solution except maybe we should stop wasting so much money on studies like these that are often entered into with the intent of proving a point and are tainted or, if they are not, stir up hysteria instead of adding tidbits to the body of human knowledge.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

Sure. I hate to even get into it because we don't need gay marriage thread #5324324, but gay marriage isn't a specialized morality, any more than interracial marriage is a specialized morality. Same morality, applied more broadly. Celibacy and mixed orientation marriage would be examples of specialized moralities.

Sigh.

I never said that

[Calm]

Quote

gay marriage isn't a specialized morality, any more than interracial marriage is a specialized morality. Same morality, applied more broadly. Celibacy and mixed orientation marriage would be examples of specialized moralities.

Grey, Could you please explain why you define mixed orientation as a "specialized moralit(y)".

[Gray]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh.

I never said that

"No, I said that." - Me