Fanatical disbelief doesn't make it so.

Or able to produce something from nothing.

Not all that long ago we all of us believed being left handed was a matter of choice and not God given difference.

If I were to start a church or religious movement it would have to be based on science, and no that's not Scientology, based on aliens coming here and creating man?

Or a powerful being more powerful than we are who we can use?

Real science i.e. would inform us the odds are far less for a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard and creating a fully functional flyable 747; than sheer chance and serendipity creating a vastly more complex human being!

Fanatical disbelief being the scourge of our times and a place that recognises that something from nothing is what created our universe and everything in it; even if that means ignoring the scientific evidence that tells us this just isn't so!

And neither is choice in anyone's sexual orientation.

Time for this rubbish to stop along with the unexamined life or beliefs.

By all means let us have a plebiscite but at the next election, which will get the job done for far less money!

Those who genuinely believe the people should decide, should have absolutely no problem with that or just not discriminating against folks unfortunate enough to be born different. disbelief proves nothing! Rhrosty.

A precise and well argued put down of the head in the sand deeply puritannical double minded sex and body negative sophistries that MIS-inform the advocates of back to the past "traditional" religiosity.

Lord Acton is of course famous for his dictum re how power always corrupts, and absolute power will always corrupt absolutely.

Apparently this prince (or is it ponce) of the "universal" church and the propaganda hacks that infest the benighted Acton Institute are incapable of seeing the dark irony of their situation.

The "catholic" church is of course the West's original intrinsically totalitarian institution. Part of its inherently totalitarian mission statement is that it is the ONLY source of Truth in the world, and its bogus claim on the "souls" of ALL of humankind, and that it has a "great commission" supposedly given by "Jesus" to convert all nations to the "one true faith/way"

By some accounts it is (collectively) the worlds third largest property owner, with prime real estate in most cities on the planet. It also runs the world's largest "privately" owned propaganda machine, the tentacles of which reach into almost every town and village on the planet. It is also a very powerful behind-the-scenes player in amoral global capitalism.

Via the bogus "authority" of its absurdly pretentious "magisterium" it also claims at its "laws" are superior to and always trump what they dismiss as merely man-made secular law.
Right-wing "catholics" even use supposedly binding international treaties to circumvent the secular laws of some/many states, and thus to give the "catholic" church special privileges to over-ride or trump secular laws.
See:
http://www.concordatwatch.eu Anyone for inherently corrupt self-serving institutional power!

This gambit re the "eternally binding authority" of "God's" law as described in the Bible is also now frequently used by protestant fundamentalists in the USA in their war against the secular state.

Individual lay Catholics and clergy have always been found across the political spectrum. Pell is deeply conservative; the new pope sounds sometimes like a mouthpiece for green left weekly. There are right-wing catholic politicians in Australia and the USA, but also a long tradition of catholic union involvements and workers’ rights. In South America, the Catholic Church has sometimes cozied up to brutal right-wing dictators, while left-wing liberation theologians spouted neo-Marxism and joined revolutions.

This should not be surprising; it does after all call itself a “catholic” church.

My concern is that the church (and not just the Catholics) hasn’t realised that we’re no longer living in the middle ages. It does not have any institutional authority to dictate to civil society about the laws it should pass. If it wants to participate in social policy debate – and it has that right – it must do so on the same terms of evidence and reason used by everyone else. If it relies on “God says so”, no one will listen: even its own members, if the outcome of the Irish referendum on gay marriage is any guide.

So, you are an "ethicist", are you, Peter? Well, I can understand your hostility to the Roman catholic church, because what we obviously have here, are two competing absolutist philosophies fighting it out for dominance.

In one corner, we have the Catholic totalitarians, who's concept of right and wrong was handed down to them by some mythical God. They are in a poor position to claim infallibility, as much of their ideology has clearly passed it's used by date.

In the other corner, we have the Human Rights totalitarians, who's ideology is at least more up to date. But the Human Rights totalitarians have an ideology which is no less contradictory and absolutist, than Catholicism, and like all astrology predictions and holy writ, is written in terms that it can mean whatever an "ethicist" wants it to mean.

Human rights are contradictory, and human rights can conflict with each other. You can't advocate Freedom of Religion, and then tell religious people that they can not behave in the way that their God commanded. You can't advocate Freedom of Speech, and then say that you must not "offend, insult or humiliate" any group of non white, non Christian people. White Christians are fair game.

And just to show how non discriminatory our "human rights" organisations are, the UN staffs them with such luminaries of human rights as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Libya. It is enough to make even the more absurd tenets of Catholicism positively logical.

Look Peter, most people in the western world are tolerant of homosexuals. Tolerance does not equate to approval. We will not accept that homosexual unions are "marriage". And the more you try to push it, the more that normal people become less tolerant of homosexuals. Forget using human rights because that is a joke. Most people know that human rights is always contrary to the productive and law abiding people of this world. Human rights is about protecting criminals, terrorists, illegal immigrants, and homosexuals. And every non human rights argument that you could advocate could equally apply to incestuous couples.

Peter must be an archer of some strength because he has no difficulty in drawing the long bow.

Indeed the Catholic Church will need to change it's archaic views if it wants to remain relevant in today's world.
That church learnt, to it's great dismay, what happens if they upset even a staunch Catholic nation like Ireland.

On finding out the truth about paedophile priests and fornicating clergy having their own illegitimate children, yet stealing babies off unmarried mothers, and forcing death on young pregnant women rather than allowing abortion, the Irish nation voted in gay marriage.

LEGO "Look Peter, most people in the western world are tolerant of homosexuals. Tolerance does not equate to approval. We will not accept that homosexual unions are "marriage". And the more you try to push it, the more that normal people become less tolerant of homosexuals."

I assume you think you are 'normal' because you were born heterosexual then LEGO?
Who says so? What is normal for you may well be abnormal to others.

"And every non human rights argument that you could advocate could equally apply to incestuous couples."
No, not true. No human rights organization would ever advocate equal rights for incestuous couples, given that their union would very likely cause genetic disorders in any children they may produce, hence why the practice is illegal.

Suse,

The illegality of incestuous unions is ridiculous, if two people love each other.......

Is Mise, I wasn't talking about love any where on my post, so what is your point?
Allowing the legalization of gay marriage will never bring on the same for incestuous couples, for the reasons I already gave.
Love has nothing to do with it.

Suse,

What about father son relationships?
Grandfather and grandson?
Male first cousins?
Female first cousins?
Etc.
Uncles and nephews, aunts and nieces, mothers and daughters, grannies and granddaughters?

A relationship doesn't have to be heterosexual to be incestuous.

As I said, if two people love each other; or don't you believe that homosexual and lesbian unions are alright?

Lol Is Mise, you are really clutching at straws now!
Lucky you don't live in Ireland...

Clutching at straws?

You're the one who said incestuous relationships were wrong because of the chance of children of such relationships and I gave you a pile of incestuous relationships to which your criteria do not apply.
What's your answer?

Then there are heterosexual people who are past childbearing age, why should they not be able to have an incestuous relationship if they so desire?

What is the harm?

Why are you against such people finding happiness?

Is Mise, incest is still a criminal offense, and homosexuality is not, so your really off responses are not an issue.
How do you feel about all those Catholics in Ireland agreeing to gay marriage?
Doesn't it just warm your heart?

Suse,

Incest is indeed a crime and it is a crime if it is homosexual or heterosexual, don't you find that strange?

Given that this is the case then then in respect to homosexual people the law is ridiculous, as it is in respect to heterosexual people who cannot procreate.
Why should not a woman who has had a hysterectomy be allowed to have sex with her near relatives, likewise a man who has had a vasectomy?

Surely you can't be that naive Is Mise?

You don't think the possibility of having genetic problems in any children they may have is the only problem with having sex with a close relative?
The mental health institutions and psychiatrists rooms are well used by people who have had sex with close relatives.
These two issues by themselves are enough to lead to continuing laws against this practice, regardless of the age of the people.

Wikipedia says it better than I do:
"...incest is wrong because it introduces the possibility of irreparably damaging family units by introducing a "notoriously incendiary dynamic- sexual tension- into the mix"
(Saletan, William (2010) "Incest is Cancer")"

Most of the things we do are wrong - but that doesn't mean that the state has a moral right to forcibly prevent us from making mistakes: the use of the coercive threat of the law is by far more wrong than consensual incest for example.

Nothing however prevents the state from saying: "look, if you have incest, then we will not pay for your resulting psychiatric treatment and if defective children are born as a result, then we won't pay for their healthcare either". That would be perfectly fine and fair.

Yuyutsu, luckily 'the state' doesn't agree with you.
How dreadful that you would push your anti-state barrow to include willingly allowing the birth of children with lifelong often painful disabilities and/or early deaths.
These kids don't have a comfortable life, so what you suggest is akin to sadism.

Dear Suse,

Who mentioned "allowing"?

Ceasing to violently interfere with others does not amount to "allowing" them anything. You are still welcome to disapprove of what others are doing and you have every right to not befriend those who do things which you do not like - but you have no right to act violently against them so long as you (including your family and your own people) are not threatened by them.

The "state" is no more than a bunch, or a gang of people who assert themselves over others using force without their consent, in other words, who never ever agreed to have anything to do with them. The closest equivalent to that is rape.

Yuyutsu, I think you may feel better living alone on a deserted island.
Mind you, you would have no one to rely on for providing your internet connection...

Suse,

I don't see any great mental troubles if a couple of homosexuals are first cousins and decide to live as a couple, the rest of the family would probably be happy that they were keeping it in the family.

Likewise what's wrong with a fifty year old woman having a bit of a romp with her seventy year old dad?

Providing that there is no coercion and his pills are handy.

Dear Suse,

I didn't miss anything when I grew up without the internet, then I used it in the 1980's, long before it was named "internet" and once I retire and no longer need the internet for my work I will be more than happy to be rid of it.

Now give me an island...

Is Mise, you are certainly tenacious.
As for homosexual incest, it doesn't really matter how they have sex, it is really just the fact they are closely related that it is called incest.
Why not discuss your very liberal thoughts with your priest and ask what he thinks?
I say again, incest is illegal, so all your mad arguments are for nothing.

Suse,

Of course it is illegal, that's what is so ridiculous in many cases.

I knew a woman who regularly made love to her father, so that was incest and punishable by law, but her father initiated it because he thought that she was her mother.
The old bloke was suffering from dementia and had lost most of his grip on reality,; she was in her fifties, widowed, and after her initial surprise and his perplexity and unhappiness at her rejection, decided to go along with it.
She said that making him happy was a rewarding experience and it only ended with his untimely death due to complications from a bad fall.

Would you have charged her under the law?

Wikipedia tells us that the swing to the right has also taken place with Catholics in the United States. “From the 1930s to the 1950s Catholics formed a core part of the New Deal Coalition, with overlapping memberships in the Church, labor unions, big city machines, and the working class, all of which promoted liberal policy positions in domestic affairs and anti-communism during the Cold War. Since the election of a Catholic President in 1960, Catholics have split about 50-50 between the two major parties in national elections. With the decline of unions and big city machines, and with upward mobility into the middle classes, Catholics have drifted away from liberalism and toward conservatism on economic issues (such as taxes).”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_politics_in_the_United_States

Torquemada’s method of forcing Roman Catholicism on everybody was threatening us with the Auto-da-fé – or public burning. Archbishop Fisher’s is the ending of democracy, a far more serious threat than the deaths of 3 or 4,000 heretics.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/auto-da-f

No Is Mise your example is absolutely disgusting.
Taking advantage of a demented father like that is elder abuse as well as incest of the highest order..
That woman should have been charged and locked up in a secure mental health facility.
I can't believe you would think that situation is ok on any level....

Suse,

She didn't take advantage of a demented father but let him live out the fantasy of his reality, she shewed compassion of the highest order but, not surprisingly, you can't see that.

There is more to life than rigid adherence to the law.

In fact, because I value my life, I often break the law, sometimes on a daily basis.

You are a disgrace Is Mise....

Oh Dear, Is Mise,

I'm afraid that the police is already on their way to arrest you, having been immediately informed by Suseonline that you break her laws.

A safer way to convey the same idea could be:

"Every day I toss a dice, subtract one from the number that is up, then break the law that many times": nobody could then prove that you don't always get a '1'...

Torquemada's fight was against those that imperiled the State, whom he saw as Jews and Muslims and anyone else who didn't toe the line, many in our society would share his views on Muslims but not Archbishop Fisher who probably toes the official line on brotherly love towards the members of 'the religion of peace'.
The author is only trying for a cheap point in comparing Fisher to Torquemada, the later was a product of his time and was a progressive and reduced the use of torture by the Inquisition; such torture was part of many nations legal systems at the time.
Fisher is a product of modern times and is right in his concerns that future Bishops in this country could face gaol for their religious beliefs.

The author has written a paper that is below required undergraduate standards, this is exemplified by his lying attack on John Boehner whom he alleges <....supports the mass shootings in the US.>

That is really scraping the bottom of the barrel to score an anti-Catholic point.

Yuyutsu, they are not 'my laws' are they.
They are the laws of this country.

How do you feel about the story Is Mise told above though?
I know you hate authority and laws, but just looking at the story as another human being, are you comfortable with this scenario?

Dear Suse,

The country is only subject to the laws of physics, including the derived laws of chemistry, geology, ecology, hydrology, etc. (perhaps metaphysics too, though the later is contentious, so let's not get into it).

The laws you speak about are the laws of a gang who took over this country by force. If you happen to identify with this gang, then these are also your laws.

Regarding the story told by Is Mise, this is obviously not a comfortable scenario and I wouldn't feel comfortable at all there, nor would I do the same (so I sincerely hope) had I been unfortunate enough to be in that situation. Yet who am I to judge her, given that I've done worse things in my life?

Hillel the Elder, the same Rabbi who coined the famous "golden rule" and which some scholars believe that he was Jesus' teacher and inspiration, also said: "Do not judge your fellow until you are in his place." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder#Life

Yuyutsu, if you don't abhor this behavior outright then you must condone it at some level.

If you agree to live in this country then you must agree to abide by its rules and laws.
Of course, you can choose not to, but then you will have to agree to pay fines and/or go to jail.
What makes you so special that you feel you are above the law?

Dear Suse,

What you refer to as the "rules and laws of this country" were never in fact laid down by this or by any other country, but by certain bad people, a gang who took it over by force. The planet today is filled with such gangs who divide the earth between them to the extent that no spaces are left in between, it's they who in the case of Australia grabbed a whole continent as if it were their own - but in truth they are the real criminals, the lowest of the low, it's they who weigh on the land and its people, not their victims, the ordinary inhabitants of the land who occasionally and bravely dare not to abide by their brutal decrees.

If you don't abhor this behaviour outright then you must condone it at some level.

We are all special, some just do not realise it yet, while others actively try to make us forget it.

Well everyone seems to have gone quiet on this, perhaps previous correspondents are not happy with the author's lying ad hominem attack on John Boehner whom he alleged "....supports the mass shootings in the US."
Come on shew a bit of support for allegations that Boehner is a supporter of cold blooded murder of children; perchance no one read that far.

The author of this piece appears to be an ethisist,

"An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement."
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=ethicist

If this is the case then Peter Bowden ought to apologize for his ill judged remark about John Boehner

Some comments related to this article and a follow-up interchange with Peter Bowden are in 'Approving Same Sex Marriage is Not Just about Equality for a Few'
http://cpds.apana.org.au/Teams/Articles/child_abuse.htm#24_10_15

Where has everyone gone?