Bob Lee said:

---

Christian values should be given preference because they don't try to flout natural law.

I'm saying the laws we impose should be grounded in immutable truths. It's pretty easy to discern what's well ordered with regard to human sexuality. Our laws should be reconcilable with at least what is empirically true. I'm looking at it the exact opposite way. In my view, government should not be the arbiter of what is good, virtuous, vicious, etc. That is your view.

---

You literally just said that Christian values should be given preference in our laws. . . . .With all due respect, this feels like a 'I'm rubber and you're glue' argument. You are defending legal action to give Christian values preference in defining marriage laws. I am arguing that marriage laws should be written without preference to one set of religious values in order to increase personal freedoms.

My position protects your right to marry who you want, how you want, arrange your family, raise your children all as you see fit. Your position is that I must marry who you say its okay for me to marry, in the manner you deem acceptable, and that I arrange my family to fit your religious idealism. . . .and somehow that makes me the oppressor.

What am I missing?


In the format of the imaginary conversations sometimes posted here:

You: Legal rights associated with marriage should follow Christian rules.
Me: I think legal rights should be more broad and not specific to Christian rules.
You: Why are you oppressing me?

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

We realized all of the gains up front when there was an overlap of Christian morality able to run wild with the freedoms granted by the movement; but that has all been burnt through by now and we're beginning to see the mayhem caused by the decoupling of liberty and virtue; and the coupling of liberty and vice.

---

The literal slaves that built that world and powered it until the last century (depending on how liberally you define a slave, it could go up to the last 60 years or so) would find your perspective hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

---

Come on Sapper, you are better than this.

We cannot make it through one of these threads without someone on the progressive side referencing slavery and/or racism. I think we have already had one or two.

Do you think he's arguing for a return to legal ownership of other human beings and forced labor?

---

He's claiming things are worse now. That our current society is the declension from a better starting point. It's important to identify what that starting point was.

---

Well it doesn't have to be all better or all worse does it?

Some things get better and some things get worse.

Would you rather live for a year in Beirut in 1955 or 1985?

Would you rather be a wealthy Creole family in New Orleans in 1790 or 1890?

There are plenty of examples like those.

---

Some countries were much better and more progressive decades ago (e.g. Iran, Afghanistan) but those are the exception and not the norm. Other than these exceptions it's hard to think of any time period that is better than the present day.

Any black person would rather be alive in America today than in the 1950s, and definitely the 1850s. Easy question.

I cant speak for them but I'd reckon any gay person would rather be alive today than in ANY past decade in the United States (or most countries). Imagine being gay in the 1920s.

larry culpepper said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

We realized all of the gains up front when there was an overlap of Christian morality able to run wild with the freedoms granted by the movement; but that has all been burnt through by now and we're beginning to see the mayhem caused by the decoupling of liberty and virtue; and the coupling of liberty and vice.

---

The literal slaves that built that world and powered it until the last century (depending on how liberally you define a slave, it could go up to the last 60 years or so) would find your perspective hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

---

Come on Sapper, you are better than this.

We cannot make it through one of these threads without someone on the progressive side referencing slavery and/or racism. I think we have already had one or two.

Do you think he's arguing for a return to legal ownership of other human beings and forced labor?

---

He's claiming things are worse now. That our current society is the declension from a better starting point. It's important to identify what that starting point was.

---

Well it doesn't have to be all better or all worse does it?

Some things get better and some things get worse.

Would you rather live for a year in Beirut in 1955 or 1985?

Would you rather be a wealthy Creole family in New Orleans in 1790 or 1890?

There are plenty of examples like those.

---

Some countries were much better and more progressive decades ago (e.g. Iran, Afghanistan) but those are the exception and not the norm. Other than these exceptions it's hard to think of any time period that is better than the present day.

Any black person would rather be alive in America today than in the 1950s, and definitely the 1850s. Easy question.

I cant speak for them but I'd reckon any gay person would rather be alive today than in ANY past decade in the United States (or most countries). Imagine being gay in the 1920s.

---

Do we care about the unborn, hispanics, or white people; or is this a modern commercial that features only blacks and gays?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Christian values should be given preference because they don't try to flout natural law.

I'm saying the laws we impose should be grounded in immutable truths. It's pretty easy to discern what's well ordered with regard to human sexuality. Our laws should be reconcilable with at least what is empirically true. I'm looking at it the exact opposite way. In my view, government should not be the arbiter of what is good, virtuous, vicious, etc. That is your view.

---

You literally just said that Christian values should be given preference in our laws. . . . .With all due respect, this feels like a 'I'm rubber and you're glue' argument. You are defending legal action to give Christian values preference in defining marriage laws. I am arguing that marriage laws should be written without preference to one set of religious values in order to increase personal freedoms.

My position protects your right to marry who you want, how you want, arrange your family, raise your children all as you see fit. Your position is that I must marry who you say its okay for me to marry, in the manner you deem acceptable, and that I arrange my family to fit your religious idealism. . . .and somehow that makes me the oppressor.

What am I missing?

---

So then you're saying the government should dole out rights without any regard to what the good is, but you can't see why that is problematic? Or are you saying that we can't actually know anything about good or evil based on our observances? Equally problematic.

What I'm saying is that Truth is not arbitrary, and that it's knowable. I don't think the government should create a right to something out of nothing. It's pretty simple.

Silian Rail said:

---

Again, the carrot has only had the appearance of working because of the capital stockpiled for centuries from the end of the dark ages to the beginning of the enlightenment. You had the best of both worlds when freedom was coupled to a society that freely chose virtue; then you still had a net benefit when society started to liberalize but laws kept society in check; now you will see the worst of both worlds when the laws that kept society in balance are going by the wayside.

---

I find the hypothesis fanciful and wishful thinking rather than thoughtful analysis. It seem more like post hoc justification for why reality seems to contradict your premises rather than anything else. What crime rates I've seen available from the colonial period show high murder rates.

Quote:

---

I put a very low value on human liberty as a means unto itself, it is objective.

---

At least you are honest about it. I put a very low value on toeing the line when others do not have their rights infringed.

Quote:

---

I have HUGE issues with the founding of our country and the liberalism of the founding fathers. The only thing I will grant them is that they tried to gerrymander a society that liberalism would actually work in, and they did a pretty good job, but they weren't omniscient. They created a society where virtue (although not perfect of course) kept liberty in check. We decided to throw away the virtue and keep the liberty and what you see playing out in our society is the effect.

---

So it really seems that rather than liberals trying to undermine America and it's values its really more staunch conservatives such as yourself with fundamental issues with our enlightenment foundation and founding liberalism.

I appreciate your honesty in this matter, I just think we fundamentally disagree about the foundation upon which to build a nation.

I am curious if in human history you have a society in mind which you think more or less "did it right" anytime in the last thousand years or so.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Again, the carrot has only had the appearance of working because of the capital stockpiled for centuries from the end of the dark ages to the beginning of the enlightenment. You had the best of both worlds when freedom was coupled to a society that freely chose virtue; then you still had a net benefit when society started to liberalize but laws kept society in check; now you will see the worst of both worlds when the laws that kept society in balance are going by the wayside.

---

I find the hypothesis fanciful and wishful thinking rather than thoughtful analysis. It seem more like post hoc justification for why reality seems to contradict your premises rather than anything else. What crime rates I've seen available from the colonial period show high murder rates.

Quote:

---

I put a very low value on human liberty as a means unto itself, it is objective.

---

At least you are honest about it. I put a very low value on toeing the line when others do not have their rights infringed.

Quote:

---

I have HUGE issues with the founding of our country and the liberalism of the founding fathers. The only thing I will grant them is that they tried to gerrymander a society that liberalism would actually work in, and they did a pretty good job, but they weren't omniscient. They created a society where virtue (although not perfect of course) kept liberty in check. We decided to throw away the virtue and keep the liberty and what you see playing out in our society is the effect.

---

So it really seems that rather than liberals trying to undermine America and it's values its really more staunch conservatives such as yourself with fundamental issues with our enlightenment foundation and founding liberalism.

I appreciate your honesty in this matter, I just think we fundamentally disagree about the foundation upon which to build a nation.

I am curious if in human history you have a society in mind which you think more or less "did it right" anytime in the last thousand years or so.

---

"did it right" is letting perfect by the enemy of good, but I definitely think there were times when we "did it better". I put abortion up as one of if not the greatest evil perpetrated by mankind in its existence. Given that metric there are huge periods of time which are "better" than where we are now.

But to answer the question; I was a big fan of Singapore under LKY; Francoist Spain, but my #1 which you may not consider as valid was the Mondragon/Basque cooperative in Spain. They had a company which essentially operated as a regional guild for the Basque people and insured a minimum quality of life for its workers, their families and the region predicated upon Catholic Social teaching.

Bob Lee said:

---

So then you're saying the government should dole out rights without any regard to what the good is, but you can't see why that is problematic? Or are you saying that we can't actually know anything about good or evil based on our observances? Equally problematic.

What I'm saying is that Truth is not arbitrary, and that it's knowable. I don't think the government should create a right to something out of nothing. It's pretty simple.

---

Ah yes, Truth is knowable. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you believe you've got it. How fantastically arrogant do you have to be to not only know that you are right and that most of the other people on the planet are wrong, but to also think you are justified in imposing that truth?

Because objective morality is NOT knowable, I would like for government to be in the business of maximizing personal freedoms wherever it can.

A law that allows for opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage objectively offers more personal freedoms than a law that only allows for opposite sex marriage. Even if your position about same sex marriage where correct, this statement would still be true.

larry culpepper said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Serotonin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

We realized all of the gains up front when there was an overlap of Christian morality able to run wild with the freedoms granted by the movement; but that has all been burnt through by now and we're beginning to see the mayhem caused by the decoupling of liberty and virtue; and the coupling of liberty and vice.

---

The literal slaves that built that world and powered it until the last century (depending on how liberally you define a slave, it could go up to the last 60 years or so) would find your perspective hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

---

Come on Sapper, you are better than this.

We cannot make it through one of these threads without someone on the progressive side referencing slavery and/or racism. I think we have already had one or two.

Do you think he's arguing for a return to legal ownership of other human beings and forced labor?

---

He's claiming things are worse now. That our current society is the declension from a better starting point. It's important to identify what that starting point was.

---

Well it doesn't have to be all better or all worse does it?

Some things get better and some things get worse.

Would you rather live for a year in Beirut in 1955 or 1985?

Would you rather be a wealthy Creole family in New Orleans in 1790 or 1890?

There are plenty of examples like those.

---

Some countries were much better and more progressive decades ago (e.g. Iran, Afghanistan) but those are the exception and not the norm. Other than these exceptions it's hard to think of any time period that is better than the present day.

---

Alas, if only progressive American Presidents (*) Carter and Biden hadn't handed Iran and Afghanistan to the GOP/err, moslem fascists. Just as President Wilson wound up handing Europe over to Mussolini/Hitler, I suppose…in some ways.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

So then you're saying the government should dole out rights without any regard to what the good is, but you can't see why that is problematic? Or are you saying that we can't actually know anything about good or evil based on our observances? Equally problematic.

What I'm saying is that Truth is not arbitrary, and that it's knowable. I don't think the government should create a right to something out of nothing. It's pretty simple.

---

Ah yes, Truth is knowable. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you believe you've got it. How fantastically arrogant do you have to be to not only know that you are right and that most of the other people on the planet are wrong, but to also think you are justified in imposing that truth?

Because objective morality is NOT knowable, I would like for government to be in the business of maximizing personal freedoms wherever it can.

A law that allows for opposite sex marriage and same sex marriage objectively offers more personal freedoms than a law that only allows for opposite sex marriage. Even if your position about same sex marriage where correct, this statement would still be true.

---

So personal freedom is an end unto itself? A thing is good if it does not restrict personal freedoms, and a thing is bad if it restricts personal freedoms?

Why is it that weirdos can wear a Che Guevara shirt, sport the hammer and sickle flag or carry around a copy of Das Kapital without issue, but say you like Francoist Spain and you're suddenly fringe

Bob Lee said:

---

So personal freedom is an end unto itself? A thing is good if it does not restrict personal freedoms, and a thing is bad if it restricts personal freedoms?

---

As far as government is concerned, yes, laws which promote personal freedoms can be a goal. I'm open to nuance or exceptions to this if you think there should be some, but I don't think I am saying anything radical.

Edit: From your perspective, the practice of non Christian religions might be bad. Or being an atheist might be bad. Does that mean you believe freedom of religion is bad? Maybe you think tattoos are bad. Are laws which permits people freedom to mark their own bodies bad?

Is it possible for you to disagree with a belief / lifestyle without demanding it be made illegal?

Bob Lee said:

---

The problem from my perspective is that once we unmoor laws from an objective standard rooted in truth, then you can justify anything. The notion of justice itself relies on a well trained conscience and a proper understanding about what the right thing is to do in a particular instance. If we're going to punish people, send people to jail, sentence them to die, it had better be because what they did is actually wrong. If the truth is unknowable, how can we ever judge that anyone is doing anything wrong?

I don't need to rely on Christianity to say we have intrinsic knowledge about right and wrong. Aristotle knew this, and he lived before Christianity. The Decalogue pre dates Christianity. I'm not prescribing strict adherence to Christianity. It's just been the mechanism through which natural law is understood in the west for about a couple of thousand years.

---

A few concerns about objective moral truth: First, there are multiple versions of objective moral truth, none can be proven correct, and all must be taken on faith. Second, even if objective moral truth exists, we must rely on imperfect subjective human beings to interpret and execute objective moral laws.

Yes, laws rooted in something other than Christianity have the potential for making legal things not sanctioned by Christianity. In a democracy, eligible citizens get a say (indirectly usually) in deciding what laws to pass and how to enforce them. In a theocracy, a religious authority decides all laws and how to enforce them in the name of their version of God. Roughly, which system of government are you advocating for?

A democratic society which values individual property might be expected to write laws against theft. A democratic society which values life and safety might write laws against murder and assault. A society that values freedom of religion might write laws to permit the practice of different religions and beliefs. A society that does not value freedom of religion might write laws to violently force all citizens to obey one particular ideology. Again, what are you advocating for? If you value your right to practice Christianity, but you do not value my right to not practice Christianity, then you do not value freedom of religion. You value Christian theocratic authoritarianism.

Now, what members of society value can certainly be informed by religion and by Christianity. I think the vast majority of Christians that I know would say that freedom of religion is compatible with Christianity. I am not a Christian scholar, but I don't recall Jesus beating anyone over the head and forcing them to follow his teachings.

What I think you are not acknowledging is that your own rights to believe and practice as you see fit are equally at stake. If you are advocating for a system of governance rooted in religious truth, then you lose all reason to object the moment those with authority adopt a different religious truth.

Quote:

---

I tend to think that if something is intrinsically evil, it should not be legal. But if something is morally ambiguous or indifferent, it shouldn't be illegal.

---

And who gets to define evil? When those in power decide Christianity is evil, your objections lose ALL credibility. In a society rapidly becoming more secular, freedom of religion is Christianity's best defense. I worry that the more and more Christians continue to double down on the idea that their ideology should receive special treatment, the worse it will be for them in future decades. I don't want that.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

The problem from my perspective is that once we unmoor laws from an objective standard rooted in truth, then you can justify anything. The notion of justice itself relies on a well trained conscience and a proper understanding about what the right thing is to do in a particular instance. If we're going to punish people, send people to jail, sentence them to die, it had better be because what they did is actually wrong. If the truth is unknowable, how can we ever judge that anyone is doing anything wrong?

I don't need to rely on Christianity to say we have intrinsic knowledge about right and wrong. Aristotle knew this, and he lived before Christianity. The Decalogue pre dates Christianity. I'm not prescribing strict adherence to Christianity. It's just been the mechanism through which natural law is understood in the west for about a couple of thousand years.

---

A few concerns about objective moral truth: First, there are multiple versions of objective moral truth, none can be proven correct, and all must be taken on faith. Second, even if objective moral truth exists, we must rely on imperfect subjective human beings to interpret and execute objective moral laws.

Yes, laws rooted in something other than Christianity have the potential for making legal things not sanctioned by Christianity. In a democracy, eligible citizens get a say (indirectly usually) in deciding what laws to pass and how to enforce them. In a theocracy, a religious authority decides all laws and how to enforce them in the name of their version of God. Roughly, which system of government are you advocating for?

A democratic society which values individual property might be expected to write laws against theft. A democratic society which values life and safety might write laws against murder and assault. A society that values freedom of religion might write laws to permit the practice of different religions and beliefs. A society that does not value freedom of religion might write laws to violently force all citizens to obey one particular ideology. Again, what are you advocating for? If you value your right to practice Christianity, but you do not value my right to not practice Christianity, then you do not value freedom of religion. You value Christian theocratic authoritarianism.

Now, what members of society value can certainly be informed by religion and by Christianity. I think the vast majority of Christians that I know would say that freedom of religion is compatible with Christianity. I am not a Christian scholar, but I don't recall Jesus beating anyone over the head and forcing them to follow his teachings.

What I think you are not acknowledging is that your own rights to believe and practice as you see fit are equally at stake. If you are advocating for a system of governance rooted in religious truth, then you lose all reason to object the moment those with authority adopt a different religious truth.

Quote:

---

I tend to think that if something is intrinsically evil, it should not be legal. But if something is morally ambiguous or indifferent, it shouldn't be illegal.

---

And who gets to define evil? When those in power decide Christianity is evil, your objections lose ALL credibility. In a society rapidly becoming more secular, freedom of religion is Christianity's best defense. I worry that the more and more Christians continue to double down on the idea that their ideology should receive special treatment, the worse it will be for them in future decades. I don't want that.

---

A thing is good if it fulfills its intended (natural) purpose. A chair is good if you can sit in it without falling over. In the case of human sexuality, the procreative aspect can't be ignored. The purpose of marriage. We can know what it is, because we know what the product of it is. That is not subjective.

If subjectivity rules, then we cant talk about things in terms of good or evil, right or wrong. Things are only pleasurable, or painful maybe. On what basis, if we can't know what is evil, can you say that Hitler was evil or committed evil acts?

Should men be allowed to marry young children? If not, why not?

Edit: the point is that you will eventually have to answer the question of what is the basis on which things are justified, or not. And if that basis is made up whole cloth by you or anyone, then it can be changed however or whenever anyone wants to. Any standard not rooted in truth is therefore arbitrary.

This dude will be the Democrat nominee for president in 2024… https://t.co/sEdzGebpHY

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) October 18, 2022

'Love wins.'

nortex97 said:

---

This dude will be the Democrat nominee for president in 2024… https://t.co/sEdzGebpHY

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) October 18, 2022

'Love wins.'

---

Honestly, I wouldn't care if that person was dragged out of the bar and between within an inch of their life.

How do you manage to call things illegal with a straight face? Abortion used to be illegal; sodomy used to be illegal, gay marriage used to be illegal. These things are all now legal; but apparently infanticide and incest are off-limits?

By what stretch of imagination are you able to craft an argument against incest if both participants are willing adults? Just a few lines above your "Incest is Illegal" post you say "its wrong to tell a class of people they don't get to enjoy the benefits of marriage because of who they are....this is different from adult-minor marriage because in gay marriage both parties are consenting adults".

So again, by your logic we should allow adult Fathers and Sons to get married.

This is where the slippery slope of moral relativism leads us, if something has meaning then everything has to have the same meaning no matter how perverse and how tentatively linked or beneficial, because to not do so would be prejudicial.

Bob Lee said:

---

If all of these things happened in a vacuum, then there would be no issue, but they don't.

Pornography should absolutely be illegal. No fault divorce should be illegal. Homosexual marriage (oxymoron) should be illegal. Chemically castrating children should be illegal. Incest should be illegal. Infanticide should be illegal. Genocide, murder, all forms of child abuse, etc.

That is not the same as saying regular mass attendance is required. Everyone must sign up for perpetual adoration. You must Baptize your child according to canon law.

These are things that used to be widely accepted. They're not uniquely Catholic or Christian. Were we a theocracy right up until Obergefell? You don't need to live out the faith, neither does perfect adherence to these laws guarantee salvation. The idea that no gay marriage = theocratic fascist dictatorship I can't understand where this comes from.

---

It isn't enough to list a few things that should be legal and a few that shouldn't. Give me a process or standard for determining what should be legal and what should not. You want to legislate 'this sin', but not 'that sin'? Why?

Is the standard just what society widely accepts? If so, then its going to be something fluid and subject to the current whims of society.

I would agree that its hyperpbole to say that no gay marriage = theocratic fascist dictatorship. However, if it is your opinion that legal rights related to marriage should be determined by and imposed by one religion, then I think your particular position on that particular issue is one of theocratic authoritarianism.

"Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society."

-CCC 2385

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

"Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society."

-CCC 2385

---

I accept it as an explanation for how / why the CC finds divorce immoral. If this is also meant to serve as an explanation of why divorce should be illegal, then we are back to theocracy. A system of government ruled through a religious authority. And if this is what you are advocating for, I wish you would come out and state it. I'm not going to like it or approve of it, but you are certainly entitled to your views.

And, I am having difficulties understanding this explanation for why divorce should be illegal in light of previous posts:

Quote:

---

That is not the same as saying regular mass attendance is required. Everyone must sign up for perpetual adoration. You must Baptize your child according to canon law.

You don't need to live out the faith. . . . .

---

These two quotes seem at odds with your CCC justification for illegal divorce. Either I am free to live out my own faith or I should be made legally responsible for adherence to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

---

Do you acknowledge that no fault divorce is a contravention of natural law, or not? At some point rejection of natural law is a "nuh uh" refutation. Do you agree that we can rely on our sense experiences for accurate true information?

I agree that if we can't agree on some universal truth, then we'll not get anywhere. What I'm saying is that you can then point to nothing objective that would justify your faith in a canon or system of laws and rules to live by of any sort. Because they could not be applied consistently over time. Anything you could come up with is rooted in nothing that could hold up to any scrutiny at all.

we're to the point where doctors are telling children and their parents that they can pause their natural development without any negative consequences despite all evidence to the contrary. You're saying there's no value in the truth unless I can convince everyone of it. I say that's preposterous. So now what?

Edit: do you take issue with the catechism, or its content? Just curious.