The Pope opened his mouth...

[macgamer]

This essay written, fittingly, by an Oxford Dominican on this very topic explains the Catholic position and the whole application of Natural Law.
http://godzdogz.op.org/2010/02/natural-law-and-governments-laws.html

[RedCelt69]

...explains the Catholic position...

Self-thought is a far greater means of understanding than having to rely on the thoughts of others.

Just a FYI for you, macgamer.

[Senethro]

This essay written, fittingly, by an Oxford Dominican on this very topic explains the Catholic position and the whole application of Natural Law.
http://godzdogz.op.org/2010/02/natural-law-and-governments-laws.html

lessee

smugly selfcongratulatory about how they picked the winning side and are the only people entitled to determine human rights
sly jab at atheism by describing nazi governance as atheistic instead of "fucking nuts"
the idea that its permitted for you to be homosexual as long as you don't express it in any way
the catholic church invented eveyrthing ever including hunam rights so they should get a say in them now

modern secular society has come to regard as essential that communication and dialogue between interestes is necesary to maintaining a stable democratic state. there can be no exchange with a group that thinks its the coolest person in the room and says that thou shalt do what the voices in my head tell you

I completely fail to see what I was supposed to get out of that link as it can only preach to the choir as the writer and I would have several bones of contention on the observed nature of reality. As it was, when reading it I alternately scoffed, scratched my head and felt sinistition. (whats a word for the emotion of deep disquiet when viewing something much larger than the human scale that one regards as sinister?)

[jollytiddlywink]

This essay written, fittingly, by an Oxford Dominican on this very topic explains the Catholic position and the whole application of Natural Law.
http://godzdogz.op.org/2010/02/natural-law-and-governments-laws.html

I second RedCelt, and cannot help but observe that the catholic church seems to spend a great deal of time explaining itself.

I must also note, straight away, that your article brings us no closer to an actual demonstration of how natural law can supposedly logically deduce, without any evidence, that homosexuality is wrong. I must suggest that if you were able to demonstrate that logical process, you would have done so by now. I therefore take your failure to produce such a deduction as a de facto admission that it is not, as you previously asserted, possible to draw up

'laws' or moral codes can be deduced by reason without the use of experience ( a posteriori)

, at least not ones which are in any way concerned with issues of homosexuality.
Natural law, therefore, is a weak leg to stand on for what the church freely admits it considers to be "necessary discrimination" (they do, as the catechism states, try to avoid "unnecessary discrimination" which, correct me if I'm wrong, is a distinctly Orwellian concept, with the obvious implication that discrimination is necessary because of who someone is).

The article mentions that the Bishop's Conference "welcomed the extension of protections to religious believers" (but not, we note, to non-believers), and again mention "unjust discrimination," which has as its obvious corollary the catholic concept of "just discrimination". Once again, on the basis of who someone is.

The Equality Bill is then attacked as a threat to the church, as a piece of "unjust discrimination," (I cannot help but note that so far in the article, the only unjust discrimination is that directed at catholics [who chose to be catholic, and could chose to no longer be catholic]), on the basis that it would require the church to not discriminate against homosexuals. The article then makes the grave and unsupportable error of suggesting that the church's teachings on homosexuality are the same as Jesus' teachings on homosexuality:
"the hypothetical homosexual person does not even try to live according to the Church's teaching regarding homosexuals, and indeed might have a scandalous disregard for the teachings of Christ in this area."

In fact, nowhere in the Bible (or out of it) does Jesus make any remarks about homosexuality. He did take a dislike to money lenders. Perhaps the church should "justly discriminate" against bankers, if it is concerned with following Jesus' teachings.

Once again, I feel that it is vitally important to note that the biblical verses cited to 'prove' that homosexuality is an abomination are a matter of on-going theological debate concerning the validity of their translation, and leaving aside the spurious and unsupported claim that "natural law" prohibits homosexuality, the church is on very thin ice if it claims to be justly discriminating against homosexuals on the basis of the bible.

Lastly, if, for the sake of argument, I ignore for the moment the debated translation of verses like Leviticus 18 22, and accept it at face value, I then have to ask why the church does not wish to discriminate against butchers who handle pork (Leviticus 11 7), or indeed those who eat shellfish. Particularly, I note that the church does not insist on putting to death anyone who works on a Sunday, despite the fact that this is explicitly called for in the bible.

The wish of the church to continue to discriminate against homosexuals is not the church following the bible; it is not the church obeying so-called natural law; it is the church discriminating against homosexuals without a logical or a biblical basis. It is unjust discrimination. It is neither logically nor biblically defensible. It is demonstrably wrong.

Edited to correct a typo and improperly stacked parenthesis.

[RedCelt69]

I love the idea of anyone (Catholic or otherwise) going on about Natural Law as if it is something which cannot be disobeyed.

Homosexuality exists all over the place in "Nature". It's just one of those things which all sorts of creatures enjoy. Homo Sapiens Sapiens who are homosexual are fully, utterly and absolutely abiding by Natural Law.

There's not many creatures who choose lifelong abstinence, though.

[the Empress]

Y'know, I've had this argument before and I can feel the rage . . .

I don't see why, unless you have an emotionally invested opinion, and you're absolutely sure you're right. In which case, you probably aren't. Enjoy the tea, though.

Here's a few examples why: ‘AIDS, Condoms & the Catholic Church’: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29927

‘Hey Macgamer how is the Catholic church not medieval’ viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29807&start=20

[jollytiddlywink]

Y'know, I've had this argument before and I can feel the rage . . .

I don't see why, unless you have an emotionally invested opinion, and you're absolutely sure you're right. In which case, you probably aren't. Enjoy the tea, though.

Here's a few examples why: ‘AIDS, Condoms & the Catholic Church’: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29927

‘Hey Macgamer how is the Catholic church not medieval’ viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29807&start=20

I hope you enjoyed your cup of Darjeeling, Empress (of India, it is tempting to add...).
Doubtless this qualifies as tempting fate, but perhaps Macgamer has nothing more to say, on this particular topic at least. He's been quiet for days... no reply from him about the lack of biblical support for catholic bigotry, and as for the logical proof that homosexuality is wrong... lets just say that the apocalypse seems likely to occur before he can produce that one!

[wild_quinine]

Here's a few examples why...

Huh. I read those threads, and I've got to tell you that I didn't detect much rage in your posts. They all seemed calm, and mostly well argued. If you feel rage, but you post calm, then you are an awesome human being.

I don't agree with everything you said, though.

[Haunted]

The Pope opened his mouth and...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ma ... ex-scandal
Oh my.

[the Empress]

This is the discussion I meant to link to before but couldn't find: Artificial Insemination (there's loads of Macgamer related argument on homosexuality): viewtopic.php?f=2&t=31250&p=324873#p324873

I'd like to believe I'm awesome (it's my *dream*), but in reality, I'm more . . . bedgraggled librarian meets confused English sheepdog

Here's a few examples why...

Huh. I read those threads, and I've got to tell you that I didn't detect much rage in your posts. They all seemed calm, and mostly well argued. If you feel rage, but you post calm, then you are an awesome human being.

I don't agree with everything you said, though.

[Haunted]

(via pharyngula)
Is there any country not afflicted with Catholic pederasts?
http://www.nrc.nl/international/Feature ... h_revealed

[jollytiddlywink]

I'm calling 'macgamer fail' on this thread. Its gone very quiet in the dogmatosphere, and its been that way for a fortnight. I don't think he's got a coherent answer to this, or we'd have heard it by now.

[wild_quinine]

Is there any country not afflicted with Catholic pederasts?

You might as well ask if there are any countries not afflicted with greedy Jews or terrorist Muslims. Once you've asked a question like that it almost doesn't matter what the answer is; your lot is cast.

We know there are bad people everywhere, in all walks of life. The issue at stake is not the speculative frequency, but rather the Church's demonstrable response to known incidences of pederasty, which is rightly concerning.

[Haunted]

The frequency is not speculative. The Vatican's own reports show that upto 5% of priests have raped children.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/se ... on-vatican

Recently we are just learning of the scales of the molestation is nations such as Ireland, Germany and, as I posted above, the Netherlands. So my question asks how many more coverups of instituitionalised child rape from other nations are we going to hear about?

[Wonderboy]

The tone and the content of many of the posts made on this topic is disrespectful towards others and the Catholic church.

Whatever you believe about the morality of homosexuality it should be entirely within the rights of the Catholic church to discriminate on the grounds of sexual practice. It is an organisation to which you can choose to belong to or not. This discrimination does not harm or affect those who are not members of the Catholic church and those who are members of the Catholic church who disagree with the policy of discrimnation are free to leave. Discrimination occurs in many areas of society and it is not necessarily wrong.

The governments proposals were concerned with ancillary staff in churches rather than necessarily believers but churches should still be able to discriminate within their own organisation.

There is clear confusion by posters about what natural laws are in this context.

[Haunted]

They are completely free to descriminate however they wish.
As long as they stop recieving support from the tax payer in the form of tax free status of course.
As a taxpayer, whose money subsidises these things, I have every right to complain about how it is spent.

Futhermore, these 'values' you speak of are inflicted upon non-members of the catholic church through faith schools. As a tax payer whose money funds these schools, I have every right to complain when they teach nonsense and hate to British children.

Also, if Herr Ratty wants to visit the UK to preach to his peoples then he can do so out of his own pocket. It is currently estimated that the UK will have to spend £20m on his security costs alone.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/petition-the-pm.html
As a taxpayer, I have the right to complain that my earnings will be used to fund activities that I do not agree with.

If they just kept to themselves I would have nothing to complain about. But they don't, and they won't, because they can't. If they didn't keep pouring their crap into fresh minds they would die out in a generation, and everybody knows it. Why else would they be so interested in children and schools? (Well possibly the sex I suppose)

[jollytiddlywink]

The tone and the content of many of the posts made on this topic is disrespectful towards others and the Catholic church.

The church is not automatically granted respect. Like any other institution it must earn it.

Whatever you believe about the morality of homosexuality it should be entirely within the rights of the Catholic church to discriminate on the grounds of sexual practice.

No, it should not. They claim that they discriminate because it is part of their religious practice to do so, based on the bible and 'natural law.' Macgamer posited that natural law is based on logical deduction alone, and that, by extension, it is possible to deduce that homosexuality is wrong. When challenged to produce the deduction that proves this, everything went quiet. Natural law, as it was defined by a catholic, and a combative one at that, is not a leg to stand on to defend the bigotry of the church, unless you care to produce the logical process by which you concluded that homosexuality is wrong.
The bible is not a leg to stand on either, as I noted in one of my earlier posts. Firstly, because the correct translation of the verses usually cited is a matter of on-going debate, and secondly because the church will have to perform horridly impossible contortions to explain why only the bits of Leviticus that (supposedly) condemn homosexuality are still applied, when the parts condemning working on the Sabbath or eating shellfish are not. In any case, the church would be on slightly safer ground to claim religious belief if they were executing practicing homosexuals, rather than simply not hiring them. Some translations read "and they shall surely be put to death." No translation reads "and they shall surely not be allowed to tidy the church gardens twice a week." The suggestion that church bigotry is based on the bible would be laughable were it not so serious. But the church argument is pathetically weak, and holds as much water as a leaking sieve.
There is no defensible religious basis in either so-called natural law or the bible for the church's bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals and homosexuality. So, no, it absolutely should not be within the right of the church to discriminate against homosexuals, or bisexuals, for that matter, whether they are 'practicing' or not. They have no religious basis to do so, and without that, British law recognises no basis for discrimination whatsoever.

It is an organisation to which you can choose to belong to or not. This discrimination does not harm or affect those who are not members of the Catholic church and those who are members of the Catholic church who disagree with the policy of discrimnation are free to leave. Discrimination occurs in many areas of society and it is not necessarily wrong.

Yes, it is an organisation that people can choose not to join, mercifully. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not something that anyone has any choice in.
If you think that catholic discrimination does not harm or affect anyone who is not a member of the church you need your head examined. Religious parents have kicked gay children out of the house because they had the nerve to tell their parents the truth about themselves. LGBT youth are considerably more likely to be homeless than the average youth. Parents have denied their children an education, sent them to be 'cured,' beaten them and disowned them. Don't you dare suggest that the bigotry of an organisation that encompasses so many millions of people has no bearing on non-members and causes no harm! The harm is clear to see for anyone who cares to look.
Yes, catholics who disagree are free to leave. And they do.
Yes, discrimination does occur in many areas of society, and it is not necessarily wrong. But this has no bearing on the discrimination in question, or on whether it is wrong.

There is clear confusion by posters about what natural laws are in this context.

Perhaps you would like to explain what natural laws are in this context, then.

[Haunted]

Relevant

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... terms.html

[Wonderboy]

Haunted: You have every right to complain but you are not the only tax payer. The number of Catholics in the UK is on a par with the number of Anglicans (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/a ... 386939.ece). In 2005 there were 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales alone. There are are many organisations which have tax free status including The Richard Dworkins Foundation For Reason and Science which promotes secular charitable organisations. Being a Catholic is something that many rational and intelligent people choose including academics. It is not a settled matter that reason precludes religion, some people are religious, others are not. The Catholic church benefits society with its pastoral and charitable work as well as being the religion of choice for millions of people. Being a Catholic is a conscious choice for many people including Tony Blair for example (not a child in a school). I will pass over your last comment. Faith schools are again a choice. I don't think hate is something that Catholics teach.

JTW: The kind of person who says that respect must be earned typically pays very little respect to those with contrary views to their own. When I talked of the Catholic church I also meant those millions of people who have a Catholic faith.

I very much doubt that you could provide a purely logical deduction of any moral view because for a logical deduction one needs premises. This is the subject of meta-ethics. I do not think you are in a position to dictate to the Catholic church that they have no religious grounds for their centuries old considered beliefs. The point here is that they have a right to discriminate on grounds that constitute their faith. You cannot be both a Conservative and a Labour politician, you cannot be a practicing homosexual and be part of the Catholic church. The British Government clearly agree to the extent that they are not forcing the Catholic church to accept homosexual priests.

Practicing homosexualty is something people have a choice in. I also don't think you are in a position to tell me what I might dare to suggest. If children are practicing homosexuals then that is against the law nevermind what their parents think. The Catholic church itself does not condone violence against children, that would be the fault of the parents. If one has a belief that practicing homosexuality is wrong then that is like any other belief over which people can disagree, including parents and children.

Why don't you look up natural law.

[Haunted]

Haunted: You have every right to complain but you are not the only tax payer.

Your original statement...

This discrimination does not harm or affect those who are not members of the Catholic church and those who are members of the Catholic church who disagree with the policy of discrimnation are free to leave.

Implies I have no ground to complain. But at least you've recognised that I, and every other UK citizen has the right to complain about how a government subsidised organisation conducts business.

In 2005 there were 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales alone.

Which is still a minority. And in the same year over 9.1 million Britons identified as non-believers. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293. And if you break down 'Christianity' into Catholicism, Anglicanism, Baptists etc, then Non-believers become the largest single identifiable 'faith' group.

There are are many organisations which have tax free status including The Richard Dworkins[sic] Foundation For Reason and Science which promotes secular charitable organisations.

And as such I encourage you to voice your dissent about their activities. No really.
I'm curious though, if it had been revealed that RDFRS had been raping children and covering it up for decades, would you petition for the removal of their charitable status? Please answer.

Being a Catholic is something that many rational and intelligent people choose including academics.

A seemingly nice appeal to rationalism which loses its power when you consider some of the things that many rational and intelligent people including academics have chosen to do throughout history.
e.g. http://contexts.org/socimages/files/200 ... radium.jpg

The Catholic church benefits society with its pastoral and charitable work as well as being the religion of choice for millions of people.

The Catholic Church is the single largest charitable organisation (in terms of donations) in the world. Of course, it is equally valid to say that it is the single largest organisation of paedophiles (in terms of the number of paedophiles) in the world. And you wouldn't of course be trying to imply that because the church does good deeds, then its deeds of utter wickedness are cancelled out.

Being a Catholic is a conscious choice for many people including Tony Blair for example (not a child in a school).

And also including Mussolini, Bishop Richard Williamson, John Geoghan, Oliver O'Grady, Barry Ryan , Athanase Seromba and Brendan Smyth (see, I can name drop too).

I will pass over your last comment

Just as you seemed to pass over my other points about the amount of money the church receives from the UK taxpayer. Address the main point: If an organisation receives money from the taxpayer then that organisation is bound to comply to the wishes of the taxpayer, otherwise that money should be withdrawn. If the taxpayer believes that businesses shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation then the church must either comply with that or return the money. If the taxpayer believes that children have a right to an education free of outdated religious prejudices and intolerance then the church must alter their curriculum or return the money.
What the church does NOT have the right to do, is to demand that it can do as it pleases as it takes our money. Do you disagree?

The point here is that they have a right to discriminate on grounds that constitute their faith.

Not while they receive taxpayer money. Seriously, if they just kept to themselves I would have no grounds to complain and my arguments would hold no weight. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is no business of mine.