No why should it, just when it starts getting seriously interesting & debatable?

ID, can you tell us why has the catholic church veered away from it's traditional role in the late 1960's, which it had maintained for centuries?

Also, it seems that you are against gay marriage? Can you then tell us why you remain a catholic with all the relevations that came/are coming out with regarding their priests & sodomy/homosexuality?

Being a baptised, but not practising,catholic myself, I'm not knocking your own faith, but it seems to me to be a blind one!

Right here....

No why should it, just when it starts getting seriously interesting & debatable?

ID, can you tell us why has the catholic church veered away from it's traditional role in the late 1960's, which it had maintained for centuries?

Also, it seems that you are against gay marriage? Can you then tell us why you remain a catholic with all the relevations that came/are coming out with regarding their priests & sodomy/homosexuality?

Being a baptised, but not practising,catholic myself, I'm not knocking your own faith, but it seems to me to be a blind one!

Right here....

& that tells you I accept it? Man, I think you'd better take off those blinkers, they restrict one's vision.

---

Just because REAL CRIMES were committed in my Church does not fault the WHOLE CHURCH.

Quite right, it only faults those church authorities that engaged in and covered up those crimes. Given that, one might think that some responsibility should fall on the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for its role, according to Pope John Paul II is:

The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way.

Meaning this Congregation is effectively the "moral police force" of the Catholic Church. Who was the head of this Congregation from 1981 until 2005? Please step forward Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI. To this day, the organization of the Catholic Church does not mandate the reporting of these crimes (though there's a guideline to do so where the local civil authorities require the reporting of this type of criminal behavior).

So, no, not the whole church, just the organization, from the very top down, is at fault.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

In the beginning, most laws were made from common sense & morality, so they're intertwined.

It is down to society itself to have laws changed & if those changes are made & one does not accept them due to one's beliefs, then listen to one's faith - the answers are there.

---

Did you mean "Catechism of the Catholic Church"? I am not familiar with the publication you provided here. A catechumen studies a catechism, typically a term used for a person undergoing the initiation rite of Confirmation in the RCC.

Thank you. Proves my point that men are at fault - Who makes laws?

---

One thing really fascinates me & has done for many a year.

When one attends court, one has to place one hand on a bible & hold up the other & swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth".

That tells me that morals & Law are intertwined as if not, why use a bible?

---

One thing really fascinates me & has done for many a year.

When one attends court, one has to place one hand on a bible & hold up the other & swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth".

That tells me that morals & Law are intertwined as if not, why use a bible?

I would take it a lot more seriously if I had to swear on a Gibson Guitar.
Either way, perjury charges are nothing to sneeze at. But honestly that is something else that needs corrected. *sigh* dragged screaming and kicking into the 19th century.

---

Janice

The short answer to the OP is that the state should be out of the marriage racket altogether. The reason that the state supported marriages in the first place was to help out those who would perpetuate the population through the support of parenthood, and to protect the inheritance rights of the offspring.

Marriage to the religious class usually means a union between a man and a women AND some transcendent being/s. Most in our culture used to believe that to. But since that is on longer a shared belief, marriage should be handled by private institutions exclusively. If the state wants to give some kickback or provide civil unions they should make them available to all based on some reason that is good beneficial for the state. The support of children seems a very good one. If civil unions provide no good purpose for state, or the general good of the individuals of the state, support of civil unions should be abolished and benefits and exceptions should be modified to reflect this.

When one attends court, one has to place one hand on a bible & hold up the other & swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth".

It used to be that if you refused to swear upon the Bible, you were considered a liar and untrustworthy. The problem is, there are many faiths here in the US that don't believe in the Bible, so swearing upon it was still something they were uncomfortable with. Heaven forbid you were bold and declared your Atheism and refused to swear upon the Bible.

In many courtrooms today, the Bible is no longer used to swear one's self in. Unfortunately, it is still used to swear in public officials into office.

That tells me that morals & Law are intertwined as if not, why use a bible?

Why not use the Koran? Why not use the Torah? It means nothing but a tradition based upon a lack of thinking.

Why not use the Koran? Why not use the Torah? It means nothing but a tradition based upon a lack of thinking.

Exactly & these are the people creating laws. This then brings into question...

When does one's faith cross legal boundaries & when does obeying a law cross the boundaries of one's faith?

Which one comes 1st?

---

Sirius B,

You may be picking on the wrong church. Firstly the RCC does have a very robust set of dogma's and doctrines and about 2000 years of tradition of what is referred to as Natural Law. So to Roman Catholics, the laws actually come from nature, although the author of nature happens to be super-natural. These universal laws (BTW Catholic is latin for 'universal') are written into the fabric of the creation or what you might call the universe or the multiverse.

I think skildude has had it just about right through the threads I have read relating to the RCC, and stated correctly in a related topic that the RCC hold both creation and evolution as cooperative, and the rules of nature and the rules of the church should both reflect and complement one another.

Let me give you two examples:

Male Dominant Hierarchies: The RCC is constantly lambasted for having a male dominant hierarchy. Who made that rule! Well to Catholics God did, and not only is that reflected in their scriptures, but also in all primate societies. All ape societies have male dominant hierarchies. Does the Church force such a concept out of a vacuum, or is it reflecting and reinforcing millions of years of evolution?

Homosexuality: The church only permits marriage between one man and one woman. This reinforces a number of items via Natural Law and natural selection. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end for the homosexual. From a male perspective, marriage decreases the chance of competitive sperm to be able to fertilize the egg, and improves the chances that his resources are going towards propagating his genes, and not a competitors.
In both cases these doctrines seem to come as much from nature as from scripture.

I would argue that natural selection is a driving force behind many religious beliefs and institutions. And that natural selection is one aspect of the Natural Law.

I'm not picking on any church as such, just all the major religions as all their senior clerics use their interpretation of a "saviour/prophet" & base their teachings on that intrepretation.

Throughout history, wars have occurred from this - We only have to look to the middle east to see that it is still active in the 21st century.

Man created the bible/Koran etc. However, as indivduals, & if these "so-called" good books are correct, then we will find out on judgement day.

If incorrect, then we die - end of story. In the meantime, it is still man that creates laws & morals, so it's up to society itself to agree on whether laws are "good/bad" & if bad, campaign for them to be changed.

---

Homosexuality: The church only permits marriage between one man and one woman. This reinforces a number of items via Natural Law and natural selection. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end for the homosexual. From a male perspective, marriage decreases the chance of competitive sperm to be able to fertilize the egg, and improves the chances that his resources are going towards propagating his genes, and not a competitors.
In both cases these doctrines seem to come as much from nature as from scripture.

I would argue that natural selection is a driving force behind many religious beliefs and institutions. And that natural selection is one aspect of the Natural Law.

Then why do other mammals have gay sex? Homosexuality is found all over nature.

Homosexuality: The church only permits marriage between one man and one woman. This reinforces a number of items via Natural Law and natural selection. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end for the homosexual. From a male perspective, marriage decreases the chance of competitive sperm to be able to fertilize the egg, and improves the chances that his resources are going towards propagating his genes, and not a competitors.
In both cases these doctrines seem to come as much from nature as from scripture.

I would argue that natural selection is a driving force behind many religious beliefs and institutions. And that natural selection is one aspect of the Natural Law.

Then why do other mammals have gay sex? Homosexuality is found all over nature.

You are being very inconvenient bring up things like porpoises, fish, chimps and the like.

---

When one attends court, one has to place one hand on a bible & hold up the other & swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth".

Perhaps a bible and swearing are in use in your country, but not so in the USA. Having just served jury duty ...

---

We know that opportunistic bi-sexual sex happens VERY often in prisons among human men. Are the prisoners homo-sexual, or are they just substituting homo-sexual sex, because they do not have access to females? Mountains of data show that it is the latter.

In the case of the porpoise, I believe it is much the same. That if they had access to a female porpoise, most, if not all of the bi-sexual male porpoises would hit that. I do not know of any, strict homosexual preferences in the natural world beyond humans. If you have those studies I am happy to learn about it.

A better argument would be the Bonobo Chimpanzees; they are quite a randy bunch and often have bi-sexual interactions with other members of their troop. Again, as a social adaptation to keep the tribe peaceful, not appearing to be a strict sexual preference. I am not aware of even any male Bonobo male Chimpanzee being completely homosexual, i.e. not willing to mate with a female bonobo given the opportunity.

I am not saying homosexuality is not natural. Just that it defeats the individual’s genetic selection, into the next generation, this seems at odds with natural selection generally. All mutations, if homosexuality is a mutation, are natural. Relatively few mutations are selected.

I am stating that homosexuality does not appear to be a successful adaptation for natural selection, and thus most societies have developed rules and laws to dissuade members to engage in this preference.

And we are talking about marriage being one of these rules… and only humans seem to practice that institution as far as I know.

O.K. of the last 14 posts, 7 for sure belonged in the "Great The Great Debate (religion)" thread.

You can't attack the Bible for proof of allowing gay marriage.

You can't find anything in the Constitution that allows Gay Marriage at the federal level.

The state of California has shot down Gay Marriage and the 9th Court has ruled unconstitutionally against the wishes of the people themselves, ruling from the bench, not on Constitutional law.

So, now your telling me that because some chimps[with a very small brain pan]is the proof you need for allowing gay marriage?

Hoi polloi and tar + feathering comes to mind once again......

No offence to the chimp with the Colt .45 cal APC 1911.....

We know that opportunistic bi-sexual sex happens VERY often in prisons among human men. Are the prisoners homo-sexual, or are they just substituting homo-sexual sex, because they do not have access to females? Mountains of data show that it is the latter.

In the case of the porpoise, I believe it is much the same. That if they had access to a female porpoise, most, if not all of the bi-sexual male porpoises would hit that. I do not know of any, strict homosexual preferences in the natural world beyond humans. If you have those studies I am happy to learn about it.

A better argument would be the Bonobo Chimpanzees; they are quite a randy bunch and often have bi-sexual interactions with other members of their troop. Again, as a social adaptation to keep the tribe peaceful, not appearing to be a strict sexual preference. I am not aware of even any male Bonobo male Chimpanzee being completely homosexual, i.e. not willing to mate with a female bonobo given the opportunity.

I am not saying homosexuality is not natural. Just that it defeats the individual’s genetic selection, into the next generation, this seems at odds with natural selection generally. All mutations, if homosexuality is a mutation, are natural. Relatively few mutations are selected.

I am stating that homosexuality does not appear to be a successful adaptation for natural selection, and thus most societies have developed rules and laws to dissuade members to engage in this preference.

And we are talking about marriage being one of these rules… and only humans seem to practice that institution as far as I know.

Are you arguing that social institutions are manifestations of genetic imperatives?

Determining the evolutionary utility of any adaption may not be as simple as you imply. For instance sterility would also appear to be a prima facile case of an evolutionary dead end, yet there are many successful species that have significant sterile populations.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Not at all. What might be more inconvenient is celibacy!

Although there may be a few instances of strict homosexuality outside of humans in other species, still need to see that. We do have tons of data on populations that have chosen celibacy as a way to improve success of the species. The social insects, in the billions, forgo passing on of their individual genes to better mass produce populations in order to perpetuate the species and outbreed their competitors. In the case of the ant world, we are talking populations that are 99.99999... celibate. And the queen herself only has sex once… pretty boring… but it has worked very well as next to us the insect world is probably the most impactf on the planet, and the numbers go the social insects. In this case they are basically passing on their sister’s genes, which are nearly identical.

Higher animals also, including humans, may adopt a strategy of forgoing individual propagation to support a matriarch or patricians offspring. The closer the genes of the celibates are to the child barbers the more likely this is to happen. There some evidence that this may have happened in populations where resources were scarce, or where females were fewer than males, in the latter most likely to keep conflict to a minimum.