But US Gymnastics and Penn State don’t claim to have moral authority over everyone. It makes it a lot harder to weed out the terrible.
Legal conceptions change. The “marriage” in question is a legal construct.
This is an important point. I know of no corporation, institution, organization, or governmental agency that could have gotten away with such institutionalized child abuse and cover-up for centuries than the Catholic Church. It has been going on for so long and over a geographic span of several continents, no institution in the world has the combination of moral authority and absolute power to keep this going for centuries.
Because this topic is so important, I feel as though we should properly bring it to a close. When we are differentiating between different situations where abuse is concerned, it can be easy for anyone outside of the conversation to think that we are saying that one abuse situation is worse than another. Clearly, we all agree that abuse is abuse… it is repugnant, vile, illegal and should be punished severely.
That said, your (@John_Dalton) point that the church should be held to a higher standard because it claims to have moral authority is 100% true. The church should always be above reproach, transparent and held accountable. When the church lets little ones (or adults) down, it should suffer grave consequences for doing so, and everyone should be united in condemning those acts, seeing that the guilty are punished, and putting in place policies and procedures that preclude these events from occurring again.
However, immediately below the church in the hierarchy of responsibility would be the schools and the sports teams. They are absolutely in positions of authority and they, too, should be held to extremely high standards, also. When predators are let into the fold, the response should be the same as above.
I don’t know about other institutions, but you are absolutely correct about this situation. There is simply no excuse for it. Those guilty should be arrested and tried. Those who turned their heads have committed crimes as well. The problem (sexual predators inside the church) should be eradicated and the structure that allowed it to continue should be fixed. That said, we need not lobby for the eradication of churches, sports teams and universities any more than we might lobby for making cars illegal because of auto accidents. As intelligent human beings, we are not subject to making the same mistakes again and again, without the ability to change direction. We can change and will. I think that our universal efforts should be to fix the actual problem, but not to break down every potential venue where abuse could occur. Despite anyone’s feelings otherwise, churches, schools and sports teams almost always provide positive experiences and have a great deal of value in our societies.
2 Likes
Agreed. Legal concepts do change. The legal idea of marriage was always between a man and a woman. The label for that concept was “marriage” and it was a biblical principle before it became a legal concept. I’m not at all against the union between two consenting adults. I’m against changing the meaning of a word. If the courts can change the meaning of a word from something that it means to something that it doesn’t mean (or didn’t previously mean) the courts have in effect rewritten all underlying laws, case law or decisions made about that issue. No one should be in favor of that.
For example, let’s use the word “consent”… I have daughters, do you? If so, how willing would you be to allow the courts to modify the meaning of “consent?” How about liberalizing the word “rape?” Once we begin to move down this path, it is the most frightening of slippery slopes that I can imagine.
It is for this reason that I support, as a Christian, and an American, the right for any couple of any gender to enter into a legally binding union with all of the rights of marriage. To do otherwise, would be to discriminate. To change the definition of any word is ill advised.
Because it inevitably leads to legalizing rape? Well, that’s at least an original argument.
It’s not such a big change @Michael_Callen (if any), we’re merely changing it to be a legally abiding agreement (for the lack of better word at the moment) between two people instead of ‘a man and a woman.’
2 Likes
I can’t argue with you. They’re also entrusted with the care of children. My problem ultimately is with the moral authority claims. I’m not sure any people deserve it to that extent.
Let’s hope this becomes the norm. I think we’re on that path.
I agree. I’ll settle for eradicating the exaggerated moral authority. Each person should have their own up to the extent they deserve it. An organization of people is just the sum of its members when it comes to these practical matters.
Great!
So what? Followers of the biblical principle can maintain it however they like in their churches and personally, as far as I’m concerned. Social laws applying to everyone can’t fairly be bound to those concerns.
I’m not at all against the union between two consenting adults. I’m against changing the meaning of a word. If the courts can change the meaning of a word from something that it means to something that it doesn’t mean (or didn’t previously mean) the courts have in effect rewritten all underlying laws, case law or decisions made about that issue. No one should be in favor of that.
I disagree. First of all, “marriage” has always been a union between two adults. It now has to be consenting, but it certainly was not always that way and I believe I could find examples in the Bible and old law of that and other practices which do not match our current legal definition. So things have changed, as they can and should be able to under the law when it is warranted. The law is not unchangeable, nor are terms under the law. People see what marriage is and know what it means and want equal treatment for valid reasons. It’s a no-brainer legally and socially IMO. Fairness demands it.
3 Likes
An adult is a person who is old enough to be married. 
1 Like
Obviously there are a thousand shades of gray between where we are now and legalizing rape. The point was that the word “rape” means something universally. If words can be redefined, that one can be too. It was an example. If you don’t like that one, consider the other one instead.
This is your opinion and I have mine. I respect your opinion and understand where you are coming from. That said, I believe that my suggestion is a good compromise that respects the historical domain of marriage, while allowing for people to unite with whomever they see fit. Again, I’m not talking about the social laws, I’m talking about the terms and their meaning. I don’t want to argue to the point of absurdity. I just wanted to state an opinion that was very inclusive of the concept of same-sex unions, yet still maintained the word marriage as is traditionally defined.
I don’t contend that it is a very big change at all. Just that it is a change, and that I’d prefer to not change the meanings of words for the reasons provided.
I don’t think we are getting absurd. Clearly the term has changed significantly in meaning. You’ve seized on one aspect of its meaning and want to maintain it, but I don’t see how that’s justified legally or logically speaking. If you insist on it being unchanged what will we have to go back to?
If I was gay and I loved my partner, I wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less than the complete legal package being offered to everyone else personally, up to and including the name. It’s not surprising to me that civil unions or what have you are a non-starter for many.
1 Like
So we are in near complete agreement. We differ only on the name. As I said before, I understand your opinion and respect it.
I have to travel now, so I leave you with this moment of frivolity:
It’s nobody’s fault, even the Romans…
2 Likes
Especially the Romans! 
Safe trip.
1 Like
Alright once again, I’m not sure I see how this direction is productive.
Sure, but we don’t redefine every word just because we have redefined one word. We redefine words all the time. “Computer”, for example, comes to mind. It used to refer to a woman who did lots of arithmetic. “Marriage” just happens to be one you noticed because for some reason you think you own it. No greater damage to society will result from redefining marriage than resulted from redefining computer. There is no slippery slope. Get over it.
1 Like
I’d much prefer to be talking about when the NT was written…
But since we aren’t, it’s important when talking about the cover up of abuse to understand what is being covered up, and why.
For example, what is it about the film industry that has made the abuse of hopeful young females (predominantly but not exclusively) endemic since at least the early days of “the casting couch”? What has been the moral bedrock of Hollywood during that time? Have directors pressed for, and have punters gone to see, films which drew strong moral boundaries in sexual matters?
What is it about the organisation of modern sport that gives coaches such power over youngsters? Or tutors over young musicians at music colleges?
What is it about the rock music and broadcasting industry that led to Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter, Jonathan King (sorry, all UK names - the US has plenty of its own, no doubt)? Was it the dedication of musicians and actors to promoting family values, and their motto of “chastity, drugs, and rock & roll”? In the 1970s, though, paedophilia over here was seen as part of the progressive agenda - Young Liberal Peter Hain’s condemnation of the pressure group PIE was in turn condemned as “hang 'em and flog 'em” by other members of the Young Liberals, and in 1977 the Campaign for Homosexuality passed a motion condemning press harrassment of PIE. The government funded PIE to the tune of £70,000. Was rock music in the hands of traditionalists, or progressives?
In the Catholic Church, what led to abuse of pubescent boys (predominantly, but not exclusively) on an industrial scale over the period from the 1980s to 2012, when the balloon went up? There have been detailed reports and statistics, and studying those has to be more likely to remedy things than blanket condemnation of an institution whose teaching has been the direct opposite of the practices it allowed. Who in the Catholic church was teaching that pederasty was theologically OK at that time?
What the hell? Just… What the hell?
Just the aftermath of Kinsey, after all.
1 Like
Why the 1980’s? The charts on page 28 and 29 here suggest differently