Philosophical Vegan Forum

crickets be chirping

bobo0100 wrote:crickets be chirping

They do.

Sorry, I've only been able to briefly skim as you went.
I haven't examined carefully enough to provide useful feedback.

Hope I'll be able to soon, but maybe somebody else can get started?

I'm not going to make a full reply right now, because I'm on a busy schedule and I got an Italian test to study for. Anyways, I read the first 2 pages (Or 5 if you are counting each individual page) and I think I can make a few counter arguments. And I haven't read anyone elses yet, so I may or may not be repeating. I can in fact confirm that Catholics do accept homosexuals. Don't let any new atheist tell you otherwise. Hell i go to school with them everyday. Anyways, they make the argument that claims that primary school is for the little ones, womens hospitals are for the women, etc. Each to their own is what they were saying I guess. Anyways, it was obvious that they are hinting that Marriage is between a man and a women. At first this does seem like a strong argument. But I find something wrong here. In primary school, the only teach the basics, colors, shapes, ETC, obviously for the newborns. Womens hospitals are for women (for their.. issues ) anyways, I think marriage isn't like those, considering I think marriage is more versatile than the previous examples. A primary school, like said, teaches the easy stuff, which is easily caught on by children. If you put a 12 year old in that school, they'll probably feel insulted. With marriage, it has the ability to have certain arrangements (see my topic on polygamy) and doesn't have to be limited to a man and a woman. Sure, it's been like that for thousands of years, but that's because religion looked down upon gays, and we didn't treat them equally. We thought they are abominations, especially during the Dark Ages when the Church was fully dominant.

RedAppleGP wrote: I can in fact confirm that Catholics do accept homosexuals. Don't let any new atheist tell you otherwise. Hell i go to school with them everyday.

Those damned anti-religion atheists, always picking on the poor downtrodden Christians...

All that means is that the Catholics you happen to know accept homosexuals (against their religion). My mother is Catholic, and says that gay marriage is the same as people marrying dogs, but that doesn't prove that most or all Catholics are anti-gay, just like your example doesn't prove that all or most support the LBGT+ community.

The Catholic Church has been against gay marriage forever, and while the Catholic cult leader, the Pope, has said liberal things about gay people, he hasn't said he supports gay marriage, and he's done and said some questionable things regarding these issues:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/21/po ... r-weapons/

RedAppleGP wrote:Anyways, they make the argument that claims that primary school is for the little ones, womens hospitals are for the women, etc. Each to their own is what they were saying I guess. Anyways, it was obvious that they are hinting that Marriage is between a man and a women. At first this does seem like a strong argument.

Now I'm confused, because it sounds like they were arguing that gay marriage shouldn't be legal because 'marriage is between a man and a woman'!!!11!1 Not sure how that seems like an each to their own thing to you.

That's a really annoying anti-gay rights talking point, IMO.

As that billboard said, "Dear Kim Davis, the fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already redefined marriage,"

Also, the Bible endorses marriage as not just between a man and a woman.

EquALLity wrote:

RedAppleGP wrote: I can in fact confirm that Catholics do accept homosexuals. Don't let any new atheist tell you otherwise. Hell i go to school with them everyday.

All that means is that the Catholics you happen to know accept homosexuals (against their religion). My mother is Catholic, and says that gay marriage is the same as people marrying dogs, but that doesn't prove that most or all Catholics are anti-gay, just like your example doesn't prove that all or most support the LBGT+ community.

I never implyed that. However, I did imply that not all Catholics are homphobic bigots.

RedAppleGP wrote:Anyways, they make the argument that claims that primary school is for the little ones, womens hospitals are for the women, etc. Each to their own is what they were saying I guess. Anyways, it was obvious that they are hinting that Marriage is between a man and a women. At first this does seem like a strong argument.

EquALLity wrote:Now I'm confused, because it sounds like they were arguing that gay marriage shouldn't be legal because 'marriage is between a man and a woman'!!!11!1 Not sure how that seems like an each to their own thing to you.

Ya' breakin' my balls here... I was trying to say that each thing goes with the action that it corresponds with. Little kids go to primary school, women go to their own hospitals, and marriage, is one man an one woman. Understand?

EquALLity wrote:That's a really annoying anti-gay rights talking point, IMO.

yeah well

For some, the issue is similar to the issue around mayonnaise and egg, or regional products like wines and cheeses in Europe with protected names.

However, marriage isn't a consumer product that needs protection from fraud; it's a contract between two people, and presumably a gay man knows he is marrying another man, and will not be misled by the term "marriage" into thinking he's marrying a woman in the way that people buying something called "mayonnaise" might be expecting an egg based product.

So, the argument from 'definition' is really a terrible one.

Yeah you're right. If I'm not mistaken, I think it's an appeal to dictionary fallacy.

I think I covered the churches opinion on homosexuality by putting the Catechism quote in the correct context.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote: Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

But I didn't touch on the "primary schools are for young children" argument, although did correct there almost insulating use of English in the form of the word "aborigines."

The churches understanding of social justice is reflected in the way they word there statements. Although an off topic point, it should be noted that the correct pronunciation of Aboriginals is "Aboriginals" not Aborigines, although the term aborigines has been used in poetry, most notably "Bran Nue Dae"'s "nothing I would rather be" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTiXSmQET2E)

On the overall argument of this page I said,

the burden to be proved is that there are relevant differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, or "relevant differences in cases give rise to relevant differences in treatment".

but there is definitely room to elaborate If you dont mind the fact that we are already 6000 words long xD

how about,

What even is 'like'?
Regarding the section of the letter entitled "Marriage equality & discrimination"

Not every point addressed in the letter is a point of contention. However, it seems necessary to expand upon the topic in order to clarify what's meant. The bishops inform there readers that "We must treat like cases alike, and different cases differently" and this is a point of agreement amongst modern philosophers on the topic of mortality. In the influential book "Animal Liberation" Peter Singer takes great care in addressing the potentially for morally relevant differences between humans and animals, through an analogy with women's rights. He wrote "Men and women are similar beings and should have similar rights." he go's on to explain "There are obviously important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have. Recognizing this evident fact, however, is no barrier to the case for extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals." This is the logic common in arguments about equity.

By the methodology suggested in the letter, we can apply it by drawing out arbitrary differences such as; race, hair colour, or location. In practice "traditionally marriages happened in a church" could be taken to mean, that marriages that do not occur in a church should not be recognised by state, because there are arbitrary differences between marriages that occur in churches and out of churches.

This means, the burden to be proved is that there are relevant differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, or "relevant differences in cases give rise to relevant differences in treatment." It is of note that the examples given of "differences in cases" by the Bishops, all draw the bounders upon relevant things, that protect the people concerned.

The Bishops wrote:Only women are admitted to women’s hospitals and only children to primary schools. We have programmes targeted at Aborigines, refugees, athletes, those with disabilities or reading difficulties, and so on

The women's hospitals, which are on the decline, are designed to be targeted at ailments specific to women, including childbirth. The existence of such a targeted system of health care may have had the affect that women who where not inclined to seek treatment due to factory of humiliation would be more inclined to do so. Primary schools teach a basic level of education to young children, this level of education is is not useful to older people, especially if they have already been through the system in question. Not to mention the tendency to have contact between older and younger people minimised in fear of abductions and paedophiles. four of the seven examples given are concerned with aiding groups that are marginalised of carry some added burden, and the remaining, being "athletes", stimulates athletic activity's within community's, thereby increasing the overall health of the community in question.

For some, marriage is similar to the issue around mayonnaise and egg, or regional products like wines and cheeses in Europe with protected names.

However, marriage isn't a consumer product that needs protection from fraud; it's a contract between two people, and presumably a gay man knows he is marrying another man, and will not be misled by the term "marriage" into thinking he's marrying a woman in the way that people buying something called "mayonnaise" might be expecting an egg based product.


The churches understanding of social justice is reflected in the way they word there statements. Although an off topic point, it should be noted that the correct pronunciation of Aboriginals is "Aboriginals" not "Aborigines," although the term aborigines has been used in poetry, most notably "Bran Nue Dae"'s "nothing I would rather be" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTiXSmQET2E)

I'm willing to record if everyone is happy with this. Don't know who is editing this mini has said he will not have the time.

That depends. What exactly do I have to do?