Friday, October 26, 2012

The definition or Rape, redone

As one respondent to my recent philosophical expansion of the concept of rape pointed out, the Church does indeed have a very good definition in the CCC, paragraph 2356:

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

My previous definition doesn't use "violate sexual intimacy", but that is indeed what I am talking about when I refer to using another person for sexual pleasure without regard to their well being.

True love, true sexual intimacy, is indeed violated with contraception when it blocks the procreation of new life for which the sexual act is intended. Likewise, same sex violates the sexual intimacy of the individual by enabling sexual release without procreation. And of course- sexual intimacy- in the fullness of Church teaching, is restricted to marriage of the lifelong heterosexual monogamy style.

So no, my definition does not violate 2356 of the Catechism. It just explains it in simpler terms.

I would point out that the clergy sexual abuse scandal, is always in violation of this teaching, and is in fact the same crime.


mcc1789 said...

Sexual intimacy equals procreation then? How boring. I guess infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry by that definition.

Theodore Seeber said...

I love Chrome on android, it allowed me to publish your comment without hauling out the big computer.

It is only boring if you have no mental intimacy with your spouse, or if you are doing sex wrong. The sexual act should take between 18-25 years to complete in the first world. At the end you have a functional citizen to support you in your old age and the government has a new taxpayer.

Civil marriage is all about material incentives to do sex right. Civil Marriage is a business contract for that purpose, and there is a reason why an infertile couple splitting up over infertility is called an annulment rather than a divorce.

mcc1789 said...

So why can't you have that without procreation? I'm all for people having a good intimate relationship. However, what if the couple doesn't want children? Why should they have to? Mandating people become parents does not sound like a recipe for good parenting. Won't someone please think of the children?
It's civil, as you admit, so why does marriage have to follow your religion's dictums? This business contract "to do sex right" (plus other things such as personal companionship, one presumes) does not have to include children, nor, dare I say it, does that have to mean a man and woman only. Marriages can be annulled if they aren't consummated, regardless of whether the couple is fertile. If having children was wholly or partly reason the couple married, it makes sense to end the marriage, but otherwise no. On that note, does the Church really allow annulments for couples that have clearly consummated but did not produce children?

Theodore Seeber said...

" The sexual act should take between 18-25 years to complete in the first world. At the end you have a functional citizen to support you in your old age and the government has a new taxpayer."

I guess I needed to say that again for emphasis. If the couple doesn't want children, fine, but don't ask me to *subsidize their lifestyle with higher taxes*.

People who have children and stay married should be subsidized, because they are adding future taxpayers to the system. People who don't, shouldn't be given the benefits of civil marriage.

And yes, not having children is a reason for annulment under Canon Law. But that's Sacramental Marriage, not civil, and an entirely different item.

My opposition to gay marriage does not extend to civil unions, for instance. And I'm all for civil unions for heterosexuals as well, with contract term limitations, since the non-religious can't seem to stay married anyway.

mcc1789 said...

You're saying a marriage should last at least 18-25 years, is that it? So it must all be about making future tax payers?

Thanks for the info on Canon Law, that makes sense.

What benefits does marriage give that civil unions don't? Isn't that entire idea to impart the same benefits under another name? I have no problem with them all becoming civil unions, either, and leaving marriage private. Then again, I'd have no problem with making it all by private contract, term limits or not. I think you will find that religious people get divorced a lot as well, including Catholics (there are conflicting sources on divorce rates, though non-religious people are highest in none of them-evangelical Christian outmatch us). The Vatican complained about US bishops giving out too many annulments as I recall, to cover the Church end of things. I would guess Catholics might get divorced more too if they didn't have to get annulments.

Theodore Seeber said...

Future taxpayers is the only legitimate interest of government in marriage. Had the gay lobby stopped at civil unions and a lack of government interference in religious matters, EVERY Catholic would have been with them.

The ONE benefit that civil marriage gives that gay civil unions can't- is the assumption of heterosexual fidelity and thus the legitimacy of the offspring for purposes of inheritance- the assumption that the children are related genetically to the father.

True Sacramental Marriage, if understood properly by the participants, has no need for divorce, ever. But that is because in Sacramental marriage, the two become one spirit. And that is something you need religion and heterosexuality for- no homosexual couple is capable of it.

mcc1789 said...

I highly doubt that every Catholic would have been all for it, but never mind. You seem to forget adoption, but also that homosexuals are usually capable of having children.

I don't see government insuring fidelity. As for paternity, DNA tests have made that possible where in the past it wasn't certain. Thus I'm not seeing a significant difference for legal purposes.

Obviously sacramental marriage only applies to whoever the Church decides it does.

Theodore Seeber said...

Even 11 year old girls know that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt:

So I guess you're NOT smarter than a 5th grader.

And if you think two homosexuals can successfully procreate with NO outside help, then you flunked biology 101 as well.

The government doesn't insure fidelity. But a public marriage- with vows before witnesses- creates the ASSUMPTION of fidelity. If you can't understand that, then I don't want your vow- on anything- because you won't be faithful to your word.

DNA tests are extremely expensive, and a waste of money in most cases. If you have a Sacramental Marriage- with vows- and your partner is trustworthy, then there is no need to question any children that come along, ever. Only if you are a moral degenerate, or your partner is, is there a reason to question- and once again, don't ask me to spend government tax money on YOUR moral choices.

A Sacrament is an Outward Sign of Inward Grace- and thus, the Church is only recognizing a truth that you can't recognize. But since you don't know the value of keeping your word, I am not surprised.

Theodore Seeber said...

I've never met a child raised by homosexuals that didn't miss their birth parent of the other gender. I strongly doubt that they exist- there is a reason why the human species has two genders.

As for IVF- I'm against that too. And you claimed that a homosexual couple was fertile, so IVF (a treatment for infertility) is out.

If they have children from a previous MARRIAGE, they should have stayed married. Divorce is evil and is always damaging to the children; to divorce for such a selfish reason is incredibly immoral.

And if you're asking me to support civil marriage for homosexuals- then yes, you're asking me to spend tax money on tax breaks for infertile unions.

I find it hard to understand that you don't understand being truthful in a public vow. How do you trust anybody?

Theodore Seeber said...

Apparently I clicked on the wrong link and deleted this post from MCC1789:

You have your anecdote-there are others, from people raised by homosexuals that will say otherwise.

Did I say homosexuals could procreate without outside help? No, I didn't (though neither can many heterosexual couples, thus IVF). My reference was to the fact that many homosexuals have children from heterosexual relationships they may at least partly raise with a same-sex partner.

So why can't that work for any marriage?

DNA tests do not cost very much, and if you want to determine paternity, they are hardly useless.

Fine, if you believe in sacramental marriage that much, it's no concern of mine. I'm not asking you to spend money.

Enough ad hominems. And no, I do not fully understand. Thus my questions, that have been nothing but polite.

mcc1789 said...

Ok, more anecdotes. I've heard or read of many counter-examples. Do they cancel each other then?

Yes, I'm aware that IVF is also against Catholic dogma. I'm referring to the fact that you said a homosexual couple are unable to procreate with each other absent outside help. Obviously many can procreate with a person of the opposite sex, and do so.

More evil than staying together miserably? Does that help children? It's better to be true to yourself than live a lie, I'd say.

Fine, then abolish tax breaks for them all. I have no problem with that.

I do understand. You just don't think I do. And yes, I trust lots of people.

Theodore Seeber said...

The question is, do the counter examples make any rational sense at all, given 2 million years of heterosexual evolution?

And WITH EACH OTHER is what is needed for homosexual marriage- otherwise you don't have a rational leg to stand on.

Yes, better to live the lie in sacrifice to your children than to follow a lie like homosexuality.

If you have kids, you aren't homosexual, and anything you think you feel for attraction for the same gender is a lie.

You are the one who claimed that vows spoken in public mean nothing for switching the legal assumption of fidelity. Are you now reversing that position?

And no, I don't want to abolish tax breaks for people who are willing to sacrifice their happiness to bring us new taxpayers.

Since homosexuals are not willing to make that sacrifice, I say they don't need civil marriage. Give them civil unions to protect housing rights, domestic partnership health care rights, and basic survivorship rights. There is no need for anything more for such a couple of selfish individuals.

mcc1789 said...

Sure-near relatives often played a role in raising children, since this also insured gene survival.

I don't accept that marriage is only about procreation, so no sale.

Why would people suffer persecution or even die for a lie?

So if you have kids, you're not homosexual. Presumably though if you're in a same-sex relationship you must be...except when you already have kids? How odd-we must come up with a new name for people in same-sex relationships that already have kids then.

I said vows in public will not, by themselves, insure fidelity. No, I am not reversing that position. Vows aren't magic.

How about people who adopt children rather than having them, and thus also raise up "new taxpayers"?

Many are willing to make the sacrifice of raising children, but you don't want that. It's simply a catch-22: they can't have children with each other absent outside help (which I'm sure you also don't want) so they're selfish. You don't want them adopting children, so they're selfish. Can't win.

Theodore Seeber said...

What persecution? Near as I can tell, the persecution is all against people who have children. That's the real reason they want gay marriage- to try to reduce the population of the poor.

If you have kids, any same sex relationships beyond platonic friendship are not truthful, by definition.

If vows are not able to be kept by you, why should I trust anything you say at all?

Yes, people who adopt children and who sacrifice their relationships to raise them, should also get the tax breaks. But homosexuals, by definition, are not sacrificing to provide children with a mother and a father, so no sacrifice, no tax break. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Yes, homosexuals can't win. Period. Why should they be allowed to win, when they aren't willing to sacrifice their happiness for their children the same as EVERY heterosexual couple does?

Having children is a sacrifice. You can't be a hedonist and raise healthy children. Or an anarchist. And to claim that divorce is good for children is irrational.

So far, all you've shown me is that your side has no rational reasoning behind it- only silly emotions.

mcc1789 said...

What persecution? Bullying, assault, murder, and in many parts of the world criminal punishments.

Was I referring to myself along in regards to vows? No. The idea that people struggle to keep vows, and sometimes fail, is hardly news. You obviously do not trust anything I say anyway.

It's hard for me to understand as I'm familiar with more than just your family model.

They are willing to sacrifice, as I've said, and many do.

I don't claim divorce is always good for children, but would having people trapped in a loveless, possibly abusive marriage be better for them?

What, you have no emotional stake in this? Please.

Anyway, we are just repeating ourselves here.

Theodore Seeber said...

If they are willing to sacrifice for the children, then they'd stay in the closet until the children were grown, and there'd be no problem.

My family model worked for 2 million years. Yours is an experiment that has been going on for less than 30 years. When you get to 2 million years worth of data, MAYBE you'll have reason and rationality behind your proposal. Or maybe you won't.

My side comes from rational thought of how to continue the species. Yours comes *entirely* from emotions with no reason behind it whatsoever. Human beings have been using this model for raising kids for 2 million years- why should we change?

mcc1789 said...

Two million years? Not even close. In our time on Earth, monogamy was hardly the only model of family.
There is already data, but no matter. I don't see much worry about the species continuing-there are plenty of humans living.

As to why change-because we can recognize that other people exist, and should enjoy the same things, like family.

Regardless, this is clearly going no where. Goodbye.

Theodore Seeber said...

Well, you clearly are one who hasn't read "What to expect when no one is expecting", or any recent demographic data on how the human species is below replacement level.

Creative Commons License
Oustside The Asylum by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at