France is set to ban the words 'mother' and 'father' from all official documents...

Michie · Sep 25, 2012

...plans to legalize gay marriage

France is set to ban the words 'mother' and 'father' from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.

The move which has outraged Catholics means only the word 'parents' would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples.

The draft law states that 'marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender'.

Continued-
France prepares to ban the words 'mother' and 'father' from all legal documents under plans to legalize gay marriage...

Wolseley · Sep 25, 2012

The lunacy spreads......

Maynard Keenan · Sep 25, 2012

In what sense is changing the wording used on government documentation a "ban" on something?

Rebekka · Sep 26, 2012

I don't think I've ever seen the word 'mother' or 'father' on a Dutch government document. It's been 'parent/guardian' over here as long as I can remember.

Cosmic Charlie · Sep 26, 2012

Every official document I've ever seen (with the exception of a birth certificate) in the US uses the term parent/guardian.

Really, how much outrage can the Church work up over this that isn't contrived ?

Wolseley · Sep 26, 2012

My guess, Charlie, is that the Church is upset not because of what the French government is doing, but why.

Cosmic Charlie · Sep 26, 2012

Wolseley said:
My guess, Charlie, is that the Church is upset not because of what the French government is doing, but why.

Forgive me but:

The Catholic Church needs to get over itself on the topic of political involvement in the secular society.

They can participate if they choose but this hair on fire hyperbole all over the place really need to be reigned in.

imo

Wolseley · Sep 26, 2012

(shrug) You're entitled to your opinion, Charlie.

My own opinion is that the Catholic Church, even with all its failings and faults, is still, literally, the only body left in the world which is standing between us and outright barbarism.

The world pees and moans and rolls its eyes about the Church and all of its moral codes that they insist that everyone should try to live by. Okay, so what would happen if all those moral codes were simply removed? Excised from all systems of secular law? Everybody can do whatever they want from now on?

MikeK · Sep 26, 2012

Wolseley said:
(shrug) You're entitled to your opinion, Charlie.

My own opinion is that the Catholic Church, even with all its failings and faults, is still, literally, the only body left in the world which is standing between us and outright barbarism.

The world pees and moans and rolls its eyes about the Church and all of its moral codes that they insist that everyone should try to live by. Okay, so what would happen if all those moral codes were simply removed? Excised from all systems of secular law? Everybody can do whatever they want from now on?

Some cultures which have always been relatively free from Christian influence have been quite civilized. I wouldn't care to be part of those cultures, but not all non-Christian states are violent free-for-alls. The influence of the Church is not the only thing that keeps people from living like barbarians, taking whatever they want and leaving a trail of bodies in their wake. When a culture transitions to a decidely non-Catholic population, it follows that they are going to adopt non-Catholic standards. While the Church certainly is going to resist these changes, I think She has to be very careful to choose Her battles wisely.

I'm not saying that the Church shouldn't make Her positions clear, but I do think that She'd be better off (and more able to retain what influence She has) fighting for what we all recognize as the common good (feeding the poor, healing the sick, etc) than resisting societal changes which are inevitable in non-Catholic countries.

AMDG · Sep 26, 2012

Maynard Keenan said:
In what sense is changing the wording used on government documentation a "ban" on something?

It's denying a basic biological truth--it takes a male (father) and a female (mother) to make a third person. When that happens the male is a father and the female is a mother and both together are parents. They form a family which is a good for society and since the society receives benefits from the union (that good), they have an obligation to protect it.

And Charlie, France was once considered the "elder daughter" of the Church. It's sad what she has become.

MikeK · Sep 26, 2012

AMDG said:
It's denying a basic biological truth--it takes a male (father) and a female (mother) to make a third person. When that happens the male is a father and the female is a mother and both together are parents. They form a family which is a good for society and since the society receives benefits from the union (that good), they have an obligation to protect it.

This statement is not an answer to the question you quoted. Take another stab at it.

Cosmic Charlie · Sep 26, 2012

Wolseley said:
(shrug) You're entitled to your opinion, Charlie.

No, Wols, I have RIGHT to my opinion.

My own opinion is that the Catholic Church, even with all its failings and faults, is still, literally, the only body left in the world which is standing between us and outright barbarism.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough not 20 minutes ago on another thread you seemed to suggest it was the American Military that was our great protector.

The world pees and moans and rolls its eyes about the Church and all of its moral codes that they insist that everyone should try to live by. Okay, so what would happen if all those moral codes were simply removed? Excised from all systems of secular law? Everybody can do whatever they want from now on?

Click to expand...

This above paragraph is a straw man and makes the ridiculous conclusion that Catholic theology is enshrined in secular law. It also makes the incorrect assumption that removing moral codes means removing ethical precepts.

Click to expand...

Rebekka · Sep 26, 2012

AMDG said:
It's denying a basic biological truth--it takes a male (father) and a female (mother) to make a third person.

Does this obvious biological truth have any relevance on a government document? The government stays out of our bedrooms, thank God. I wish other institutions would follow their good example.

Wolseley · Sep 26, 2012

Cosmic Charlie said:
Wolseley said:

(shrug) You're entitled to your opinion, Charlie.

No, Wols, I have RIGHT to my opinion.

Click to expand...

You're entitled to think that.

Cosmic Charlie said:

Interestingly enough not 20 minutes ago on another thread you seemed to suggest it was the American Military that was our great protector.

Click to expand...

When it comes to defense of the United States, yes, it's the American military. When it comes to preserving Western civilization, it's the Church. (shrug) No dichotomy there.

Cosmic Charlie said:

This above paragraph is a straw man and makes the ridiculous conclusion that Catholic theology is enshrined in secular law. It also makes the incorrect assumption that removing moral codes means removing ethical precepts.

Click to expand...

Okay, so what is secular law based on, primarily?

And as far as ethical codes go, we had codes against infanticide, against conhabitation without benefit of clergy, against easy divorce, against buggery, and a large number of other things; those codes have gone by the wayside.....and what have they been replaced with? It appears to me that they haven't been replaced with a new set of ethics or morals; it appears to me that they've been replaced with an absence of ethics and morals.

Again, you are under absolutely no compulsion whatsoever to agree with me.

Click to expand...

Cosmic Charlie · Sep 26, 2012

When it comes to defense of the United States, yes, it's the American military. When it comes to preserving Western civilization, it's the Church. (shrug) No dichotomy there.

Actually I'm willing to defend the proposition that this is moral relativism but since your shrugging would indicate that you're not interested I'm not going to spend the time framing the argument.

Okay, so what is secular law based on, primarily?

A code of conduct that can be enforced on the society because by and large the society agrees with the ethics of the code.

And as far as ethical codes go, we had codes against infanticide, against conhabitation without benefit of clergy, against easy divorce, against buggery, and a large number of other things; those codes have gone by the wayside.....and what have they been replaced with?

It hasn't actually been replaced, just changed to fit the ethics of the society at large.

Look, we have to come to some understanding of what ethics and morals are or we can't have this conversation. By definition ethics are those preference and behaviors that are generally agreed upon and can be enforced on each other within some group. The ethics of a large society (like the US) are subject to change.

Morals are completely different. Morals are personal views on good and evil.
You can't enforce morals on someone else with any success.

It appears to me that they haven't been replaced with a new set of ethics or morals; it appears to me that they've been replaced with an absence of ethics and morals.

I'm going to have to interpret this thought the definition above:

Your morals are not long codified in law and therefore you feel there is no moral code.

I don't agree with that statement.

AMDG · Sep 26, 2012

Rebekka said:
Does this obvious biological truth have any relevance on a government document? The government stays out of our bedrooms, thank God. I wish other institutions would follow their good example.

Don't you find it just a tad hypocitical to say "government stay out of my bedroom....err before you leave, don't forget to pay for my birth control."

Rebekka · Sep 26, 2012

AMDG said:
Don't you find it just a tad hypocitical to say "government stay out of my bedroom....err before you leave, don't forget to pay for my birth control."

????

Huh?

TheOtherHockeyMom · Sep 26, 2012

AMDG said:
Don't you find it just a tad hypocitical to say "government stay out of my bedroom....err before you leave, don't forget to pay for my birth control."

It's typically not government, but insurance companies that pay (for part) of prescription medications, at least as far as this argument with health care reform goes. Should we tie access to insurance reimbursements for prescriptions to behaviors? If you don't want a part of your premium to go to a coworkers birth control payment because their decision to have protected sex is a personal choice, and one you don't agree with...then can I make the same case for paying premiums towards cholesterol lowering medications because eating a diet high in cholesterol is a person choice as well?

Now one could argue that people sometimes need high cholesterol medication for reasons outside of poor dietary choices (a component is genetic), but we could also argue that there are also many people who take birth control do so for non contraceptive reasons.

Cosmic Charlie · Sep 26, 2012

AMDG said:
Don't you find it just a tad hypocitical to say "government stay out of my bedroom....err before you leave, don't forget to pay for my birth control."

Not nearly as hypocritical as "don't interfere with my ability to drink a 128 oz heavily sugared drink while eating a T-bone steak with the side of gravy fires while driving down an unrestricted speed limit highway, unbelted and texting my friend"

But

Pay for my heats surgery, diabetes meds, brain injuries.

AMDG · Sep 26, 2012

Cosmic Charlie said:
Not nearly as hypocritical as "don't interfere with my ability to drink a 128 oz heavily sugared drink while eating a T-bone steak with the side of gravy fires while driving down an unrestricted speed limit highway, unbelted and texting my friend"

But

Pay for my heats surgery, diabetes meds, brain injuries.

I'll agree that's hypocritical (along with Bloomberg banning 20 ounce drinks on the very day he declare is donut day.)

But honestly if someone wants the government to stay out of their bedroom it does seem odd that they want government to mandate that others pay for their birth control.

This thing seems so very stupid--expecting the government to provide everything (and not realizing that if the government pays the bills on things, it calls the shots on how each of us behaves.)

France is set to ban the words 'mother' and 'father' from all official documents...

Well-Known Member

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Well-Known Member

meow meow meow meow meow meow

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Traditionalist Catholic

Tenderized for Christ

Traditionalist Catholic

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

Tenderized for Christ

meow meow meow meow meow meow

Contributor

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated

Tenderized for Christ

Similar threads