Gay Marriage Justified by Moral Relativism - How Do You Respond?

[Rainaldo]

I don’t. I don’t even know that means. I am just extremely confused about why you think that marrying your sister and your best friend marrying your sister is exactly the same thing.

Also, I am not judging you. Where did I judge you? Please explain. What I said was, I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone. And I absolutely do. Because the above is an extremely simple concept.

LOL Lighten up. Once again: who are you to dictate to other people what is right and wrong according to your conscience, when according to their consciences it’s not necessarily that way? Simple question

 

[jenwha]

LOL Lighten up. Once again: who are you to dictate to other people what is right and wrong according to your conscience, when according to their consciences it’s not necessarily that way? Simple question

I do not dictate what is right and wrong. God dictates what is right and wrong. Hence my argument that there is indeed, one right and one wrong, which is the argument against moral relativism. The one you are so keen on defending with false argument that make no sense.

You seem to be missing the logic in what I and others have posted and continue to blindly push the idea that “wrong might be wrong for you but not for me.” Your simple question has been answered at least twice by me and other folks and with simple, philosophical arguments, but you seem unwilling at least to defend, explain, or engage in debate about it.

Instead you seem to want to change the subject and put blame on the ones who are trying to refute your argument, saying we are “judging” which makes no sense either, only God can judge. I was simply trying to point out that your arguments are not philosophically sound. Not sure how that is “judging.”

 

[Irishgal49]

LOL Lighten up. Once again: who are you to dictate to other people what is right and wrong according to your conscience, when according to their consciences it’s not necessarily that way? Simple question

Same to you!

 

[Rainaldo]

I do not dictate what is right and wrong. God dictates what is right and wrong.

So, some people claim that God is telling them that a gay lifestyle is acceptable.

 

[Rainaldo]

Same to you!

I know! I could use it!

 

[Patavium]

Rainaldo,

You are right. Who are these people to tell us what is right or wrong?

If I want to marry my mother, and kill some people, that is ok, you know. It is right by me, right?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually I get weary of the whole thing. My son is gay. I simply say this, “if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one.” Case closed.

And I get weary of exceptions on the basis of blood relations or any other emotional attachment, since I have those attachments and my view is unchanged from the Catholic view. I understand how to love and accept someone without approval of immoral behavior. There is absolutely no contradiction if one understands what love is. (Not talking about affection or loyalty or parenting here.)

I also get weary of 5 billion individual “moralities,” by which no one is responsible for the decisions and behaviors which affect the whole community and even cosmos.

(Just as a reminder, the Catholic doctrine of sin, since you do call yourself Catholic, is that you may remember that the effects of sin are many-layered. There is no such thing as private sin, regardless of your sexual “orientation.” All sin affects community, Church, and cosmos. Every one of our sins.)

 

[livingwordunity]

LOL Lighten up. Once again: who are you to dictate to other people what is right and wrong according to your conscience, when according to their consciences it’s not necessarily that way? Simple question

Catholics aren’t the ones trying to redefine reality and pushing mandates to force people to do something that they believe is evil. Why do gay activists suddenly have to call what they do marriage when what they do was never called that in history before? Marriage has always been a heterosexual thing, never a gay thing. I don’t see why gays are suddenly jealous of that. That’s why we don’t appreciate the aggressive push by gay activists (who think marriage is only for tax benefits) to hijack it. We see it as an attempt to mock what we hold dearest to our heart, an institution given to us by God and built into the very design of our bodies. And we don’t appreciate being called bigots and other names just because we don’t agree with redefining reality. We believe that truth is truth, and reality is what it is. If gay activists really believed in letting everyone believe the way they want they wouldn’t be calling us bigots for disagreeing with them.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Right and wrong are opposites. Left and right are opposites. (Pardon the homonyms.) What is left relative to me is not necessarily left to someone else; therefore what is wrong relative to one person is not necessarily wrong relative to another.

I understand the principle you are stating, but I do not understand how it would apply to gay marriage. Would you please explain how the principle applies. The way I see it, either marriage is or is not a union oriented towards procreation. If it is, then “gay marriage” is a nonsequitur. How can there be two simultaneous definitions of an institution like marriage?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

You might inform people who give the relatavist argument for homosexuality, that all major cultures in the world since the ancient Greeks have abjured homosexuality. As for the ancient Greeks and the Romans, homosexual behavior was tolerated but not accepted.

The Romans didn’t like homosexuality. Caesar’s opponents said he was gay to discredit him. The Greeks tolerated homosexuality, but only in the context of a pupil-teacher relationship and those partaking in those relationships were still expected to marry a woman.

 

[fix]

“What’s wrong for you (a ‘gay lifestyle’) is not necessarily wrong for somebody else. Therefore, you have no right to tell two men (or two women) that they cannot marry, just because you personally think that it’s wrong. What is true for you is not necessarily true for someone else.”

The logic used to support this is absurd. If there is no objective right and wrong then anything goes. It is self serving and immoral.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Hello all:

“What’s wrong for you (a ‘gay lifestyle’) is not necessarily wrong for somebody else. Therefore, you have no right to tell two men (or two women) that they cannot marry, just because you personally think that it’s wrong. What is true for you is not necessarily true for someone else.”

I’m sure any Catholic who has discussed gay-marriage has come across this argument once or twice. What, in your opinion, is the best way to respond?

If you agree with the argument please feel free to respond in its defense.

Peace,
Robert

If a truck is about to run a person over, but the doesn’t believe it is, is the truck still there? If something is objectively wrong, but a person doesn’t believe it is, does that make it right ?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Hello all:
“What’s wrong for you (a ‘gay lifestyle’) is not necessarily wrong for somebody else. Therefore, you have no right to tell two men (or two women) that they cannot marry, just because you personally think that it’s wrong. What is true for you is not necessarily true for someone else.”
I’m sure any Catholic who has discussed gay-marriage has come across this argument once or twice. What, in your opinion, is the best way to respond?

If you agree with the argument please feel free to respond in its defense.

Peace,
Robert

I haven’t read all the responses in this thread, but the best way to attack this is not to get into a discussion about marriage (gay or otherwise) but to attack the underlying assumption: moral relativism.

First, ask your friend if his argument, which you quoted above, is right. He will say yes. Then ask if those who disagree with him are wrong. He will again say yes.

This is when you point out that he, by his own criterion, has no right to tell somebody else what is right and wrong.

 

[nordskoven]

Hmmm…Homosexuals are one of the richest demographics in America so if homosexual marriage were widespread divorce would doubtless follow and this would divert the most bloodthirsty divorce lawyers away from destabilizing heterosexual marriages and actually lead to the preservation of the American family. Pure genius, relatively speaking.

 

[Crescentinus]

Hmmm…Homosexuals are one of the richest demographics in America so if homosexual marriage were widespread divorce would doubtless follow and this would divert the most bloodthirsty divorce lawyers away from destabilizing heterosexual marriages and actually lead to the preservation of the American family. Pure genius, relatively speaking.

A very odd observation.

 

[FaithBuild18]

I haven’t read all the responses in this thread, but the best way to attack this is not to get into a discussion about marriage (gay or otherwise) **but to attack the underlying assumption: moral relativism.

First, ask your friend if his argument, which you quoted above, is right. He will say yes. Then ask if those who disagree with him are wrong. He will again say yes.

This is when you point out that he, by his own criterion, has no right to tell somebody else what is right and wrong**.

Perfect!

Though knowing the way people argue, especially the way relativists will argue, even though you have effectually showed him to contradict himself (the gold standard in ancient Greek debate), he will persist in his arguments and views.

There is really just a fundamental dysfunction with relativists that tends to render them incapable of ever conforming to the view points of others, and moreover to the truth. Their entire understanding of EVERYTHING is built upon raw rationalization. There is always a way to rationalize whatever you want to believe, even when the truth is in plain view. How to unravel this intricate web of fabrications in an individual is an absolute beast of a problem, and surely requires the assistance of the Lord.

 

[Crescentinus]

Perfect!

Though knowing the way people argue, especially the way relativists will argue, even though you have effectually showed him to contradict himself (the gold standard in ancient Greek debate), he will persist in his arguments and views.

There is really just a fundamental dysfunction with relativists that tends to render them incapable of ever conforming to the view points of others, and moreover to the truth. Their entire understanding of EVERYTHING is built upon raw rationalization. There is always a way to rationalize whatever you want to believe, even when the truth is in plain view. How to unravel this intricate web of fabrications in an individual is an absolute beast of a problem, and surely requires the assistance of the Lord.

 

[spencelo]

Hello all:

“What’s wrong for you (a ‘gay lifestyle’) is not necessarily wrong for somebody else. Therefore, you have no right to tell two men (or two women) that they cannot marry, just because you personally think that it’s wrong. What is true for you is not necessarily true for someone else.”

I’m sure any Catholic who has discussed gay-marriage has come across this argument once or twice. What, in your opinion, is the best way to respond?

If you agree with the argument please feel free to respond in its defense.

Peace,
Robert

As a supporter of marriage equality, I would like to respond in its defense. Obviously the argument has problems, but it can be reconstructed. Here’s my interpretation of the argument:

We live in a pluralistic society where secular, non-religious reasons ought to carry the day in matters of law and public policy. Religious-based reasons have no force at all in the public sphere, and if gay marriage is wrong only for religious reasons – and there is no valid secular justification against it – then gay marriage ought to be permitted. What’s wrong according to religion is not the same as what’s wrong according to our secular, public values, and it’s only the latter kind of wrong that counts.

 

[JimG]

I don’t oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons. Same sex marriage has not ever been adopted by societies going back to the beginnings of civilization, for the very good reason that marriage and family have always been important to the continuance of civilization. Family structure has been somewhat flexible throughout the millenia, but never flexible enough to encompass same sex marriage. Sexual complementarity has alway been a pre-requisite.

Carle Zimmerman took 800 pages in his book “Family and Civilization” examining family structures going back millenia. If you can find the book, get it. In all those millenia of civilization, he finds only three instances in which family structure got so out of whack as to threaten the existence of the societies in which those abnormalities occurred. And the third one he places at the present.

Family structure does not exist in a vacuum, with no effects on society at large. It has serious effects, which can be good or bad, and the decline of family structure can threaten the existence of the underlying society. Same sex relationships are not the only or even the chief malware affecting the family, but it is indicative of how bad things have gotten. I’m not too hopeful that recover is possible.

 

[spencelo]

I don’t oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons. Same sex marriage has not ever been adopted by societies going back to the beginnings of civilization, for the very good reason that marriage and family have always been important to the continuance of civilization. Family structure has been somewhat flexible throughout the millenia, but never flexible enough to encompass same sex marriage. Sexual complementarity has alway been a pre-requisite.

Carle Zimmerman took 800 pages in his book “Family and Civilization” examining family structures going back millenia. If you can find the book, get it. In all those millenia of civilization, he finds only three instances in which family structure got so out of whack as to threaten the existence of the societies in which those abnormalities occurred. And the third one he places at the present.

Family structure does not exist in a vacuum, with no effects on society at large. It has serious effects, which can be good or bad, and the decline of family structure can threaten the existence of the underlying society. Same sex relationships are not the only or even the chief malware affecting the family, but it is indicative of how bad things have gotten. I’m not too hopeful that recover is possible.

Your claim boils down to: SSM shouldn’t be legal because it’s bad for society. Well, bad how? You don’t specify. Moreover, I have no idea what you mean by “sexual complementarity.” Do you mean penis-vagina sex? If so, then you’re wrong: penis-vagina sex has never, ever been a prerequisite for a marriage license.