Materialist atheism and gay "marriage"

[TarkanAttila]

So I was listening to this podcast from Vericast, and Tim gave me an interesting idea.

So, atheists, I ask you the following:

1. Do you believe the only things that actually exist are scientifically verifiable?
   If yes, continue on.
2. Do you believe gay marriage is a right and just relationship between two people?
   If yes, continue on.
3. Why do you believe point 2)?
   If you say “because we should prevent two people from loving each other”, we have a contradiction in terms.

See, in light of 1), “love” (3) is a meaningless term, because “love” is neither scientifically verifiable nor falsifiable.

Now, there are bonding chemicals like “oxytocin” which get dumped in during orgasm, but this is no evidence of “love”, because prostitutes, rape victims, or even one-night stands also get oxytocin dumps, and the chances of all rape victims, all prostitutes, and all ONS “loving” each other is almost nil. So sex has nothing to do with “love”.

What about emotional bonds? Those aren’t scientifically verifiable, either, as two people can pretend to “love” each other and really be rather apathetic to each other - or worse, enemies. That’s what the porn industry is built on - faking emotional bonds through physical intimacy. And even if emotional bonds were verifiable, there are many emotional bonds that are just as indissoluble as a real marriage - friendship, love between a parent and child, love between a man and his Saviour (be that Jesus who saved us all from sin, or be that the man who pulled you from a burning house), love between a man and his dog, etc. No one would dare call these marriages, especially not those in these relationships.

But, since sex cannot verify “love” between two men or women, emotional bonds are the only thing that might, and emotional bonds are so broad that they could never apply exclusively to marriage.

What about the two together? Well, what do we call “friends with benefits” if not that? Again, some prostitutes and porn stars may have an emotional bond with their clients and actors, but Heaven forfend they would call that a “marriage”!

In short, there is NO scientifically verifiable data to show “love” exists, much less that “love” should be the basis of an exclusive relationship between two men or women or one of each since so many other relationships could easily cover “love”, sex, and emotions.

So supporting scientifically exclusive atheism AND gay marriage for the sake of “love” is a contradiction in terms.

Do you think you can hold that empiricism is true and that “love” is the bond which unites two gays in marriage? Tell me how this works. Do you believe “love” is empirically verifiable? Demonstrate it. Or are you a non-empiricist atheist - and if so, do you deal in philosophy? Tell me how you deal with the existence of God, then.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

1. Do you believe the only things that actually exist are scientifically verifiable?

Nope.

If yes, continue on.

well, I already may not qualify, but I shall continue.

1. Do you believe gay marriage is a right and just relationship between two people?

Whether it is a “right” or not seems to depend on where one lives. But right here we’ve gotten into territory where people could be speaking about different things without realizing it. When people are defending marriage they are some times defending “the sacrament of Matrimony.” People that are promoting gay marriage are usually promoting the ability for some one to be able to engage in the civil contract of marriage. While related these are not quite the same thing.

BTW:My stand point is that if two people of the same gender what to be able to draw such a contract for each other I have no opposition to it.

If you say “because we should prevent two people from loving each other”, we have a contradiction in terms.

See, in light of 1), “love” (3) is a meaningless term, because “love” is neither scientifically verifiable nor falsifiable.

Well, love isn’t a requirement for marriage. While it’s nice to have and a motivator for marriage it’s not the only one. I had a roommate that had an arrangement to get married to some one that she didn’t care for (and she really hated his mother). Then there have been also been people that have gotten married from pregnancy scares, pregnancies, tax benefits, status, perceived protection, and other reasons without love.

 

[Rete]

Any person who believes that a statement is untrue unless it could be scientifically verifiable is simply confused or ignorant. It’s a self-contradiction. Take the statement, nothing is true unless it can be scientifically verifiable, and then scientifically verify that statement… It’s a self-contradiction.

While a lot of the youtube-type atheists you encounter will espouse something nonsensical like that, it’s unwise to assume that all atheists would admit to something so detrimental to their position. Atheism is not synonymous with dumb.

If you do encounter one of those youtube types, then it would be dishonest of you to use that line of argumentation because it would perpetuate a state of ignorance on their part. Your obligation is to point out the logical inconsistency of their position so they have the opportunity to backtrack and rebuild their position.

Instead of approaching it like a battle where you have to win however possible, approach it like the pursuit of truth. Give them the opportunity to correct errors and logical fallacies so that you have a better chance to arrive at the truth of the matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

1. Do you believe the only things that actually exist are scientifically verifiable?

No educated atheist believes this. It is self-refuting, since you cannot scientifically verify it.

Nor is it a dogma of empiricism. Empiricism simply says that, what we know about the world, we know through experience. It does not say that this experience must be scientific.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**BTW:My stand point is that if two people of the same gender what to be able to draw such a contract for each other I have no opposition to it. **

What if these two people of the same gender are brothers, or sisters, or mother and adult daughter, or father and adult son. You would still have no opposition to it?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Thinking

**BTW:My stand point is that if two people of the same gender what to be able to draw such a contract for each other I have no opposition to it. **

What if these two people of the same gender are brothers, or sisters, or mother and adult daughter, or father and adult son. You would still have no opposition to it?

You seem to be taking his statement in the worst possible way. Surely he didn’t mean to imply there were no exceptions.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;10890329:

BTW:My stand point is that if two people of the same gender what to be able to draw such a contract for each other I have no opposition to it.

What if these two people of the same gender are brothers, or sisters, or mother and adult daughter, or father and adult son. You would still have no opposition to it?

Sorry Charley, but I’m not able to take that question seriously. At least I don’t think you mean it seriously. Correct me if I’m wrong.

But on a related note there’s an airline company with a lot of homosexual employees (actually the travel industry in the USA tends to generally be homosexual friendly). They restructured their benefits system to accommodate their employees. Instead of benefits being extendable to only a legally married spouse (which wasn’t possible for all of the homosexual employees in all states) they allowed benefits to be extended to any person of the employees choosing plus any offspring or adopted children. If a homosexual wanted to extend his or her benefits to their partner, they could do so. This included a sibling!!!

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Sorry Charley, but I’m not able to take that question seriously. At least I don’t think you mean it seriously. Correct me if I’m wrong.

But on a related note there’s an airline company with a lot of homosexual employees (actually the travel industry in the USA tends to generally be homosexual friendly). They restructured their benefits system to accommodate their employees. Instead of benefits being extendable to only a legally married spouse (which wasn’t possible for all of the homosexual employees in all states) they allowed benefits to be extended to any person of the employees choosing plus any offspring or adopted children. If a homosexual wanted to extend his or her benefits to their partner, they could do so. This included a sibling!!!

Why not? The premise of the GLBT community is that as a society we should change centuries of tradition by changing the definition of marriage, not even based on something practical, but merely because their sensibilities are offended. And that we all must accept this change affecting a huge majority of the population based on the demand of a relatively very small minority.

So who are you to deny the same essential right to a similar minority on the spurious and circular objection of, “I don’t take it seriously.”?

If that objection is valid, then so is our objection of gay marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why not? The premise of the GLBT community is that as a society we should change centuries of tradition by changing the definition of marriage, not even based on something practical, but merely because their sensibilities are offended. And that we all must accept this change affecting a huge majority of the population based on the demand of a relatively very small minority.

So who are you to deny the same essential right to a similar minority on the spurious and circular objection of, “I don’t take it seriously.”?

If that objection is valid, then so is our objection of gay marriage.

I’m against gay marriage (certainly against the church allowing it), but this is completely misunderstanding the argument for it, so let me step in.

Gay marriage supporters look at what marriage is in this culture. What is it, to all appearances? A contractual arrangement that can be dissolved at will, for the promotion of romantic love. OK, well, romantic love clearly exists between people of the same sex. And, since the arrangement can be dissolved at will, it is hard to see anything sacred or “matrimonial” going on here.

Sorry, why are gays not allowed to marry each other again? You see, the battle against gay marriage was lost a LONG time ago.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So who are you to deny the same essential right to a similar minority on the spurious and circular objection of, “I don’t take it seriously.”?

I’ve not denied any one; consider that I’ve never encountered any one requesting it. The only time I encounter anything about siblings marrying in the USA is in a slippery slope argument. Sibling level consanguinity laws are not something I’ve ever encountered any one challenging in the USA. According to a 2011 publication of the US National Library of Medicine / National Institute of Health ^] the marriage of people that are related is primarily a Middle Eastern thing.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Gay marriage supporters look at what marriage is in this culture. What is it, to all appearances? A contractual arrangement that can be dissolved at will, for the promotion of romantic love. OK, well, romantic love clearly exists between people of the same sex. And, since the arrangement can be dissolved at will, it is hard to see anything sacred or “matrimonial” going on here.

You’ve raised good points.

As I understand it the Catholic Church distinguishes between a legal state-recognized marriage and the Sacrament of Matrimony and that two people being married haven’t necessarily engaged in the Sacrament of Matrimony, as in a baptized man and baptized woman becoming husband and wife through a sacred covenant with God (please correct me if I am wrong on any of that). I do wonder how Catholic “literate” the general public is on the sacrament of Matrimony as defined in Catholicism.

The Catholic duties of matrimony are not requirements for legal marriage; it doesn’t have to last until death nor is there obligation to be open to the possibility of children.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I’ve not denied any one; consider that I’ve never encountered any one requesting it. The only time I encounter anything about siblings marrying in the USA is in a slippery slope argument. Sibling level consanguinity laws are not something I’ve ever encountered any one challenging in the USA. According to a 2011 publication of the US National Library of Medicine / National Institute of Health ^] the marriage of people that are related is primarily a Middle Eastern thing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419292/bin/12687_2011_72_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Now you’re just obfuscating. It’s not a slippery slope argument. Its a matter of principle. It goes for polygamists, or even people who want to marry their pets.

How is it logically consistent for you to deny that these communities, or any community that wants it, and no matter how small that community is, their desire to define marriage however they want; and then turn around and insist that the Church, or any theist for that matter, who consists of a overwhelmingly huge population, who demand that marriage be left alone, for you to insist that they’re wrong?

It’s an obvious double-standard that you ought to answer for.

And if you can’t answer why it ought to be as you say, then just cede the point. That there is no real reason for such a small segment of the population, for any reason, to redefine something that would impact the greater to such an extreme degree.

I thought materialists were all about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I’m against gay marriage (certainly against the church allowing it), but this is completely misunderstanding the argument for it, so let me step in.

Gay marriage supporters look at what marriage is in this culture. What is it, to all appearances? A contractual arrangement that can be dissolved at will, for the promotion of romantic love. OK, well, romantic love clearly exists between people of the same sex. And, since the arrangement can be dissolved at will, it is hard to see anything sacred or “matrimonial” going on here.

Sorry, why are gays not allowed to marry each other again? You see, the battle against gay marriage was lost a LONG time ago.

PS, what gay marriage supporters see what marriage is in the culture is irrelevant. You don’t judge an institution based on the worst behavior of its followers, but it’s best. That in itself is a fallacy.
Two, the culture has been sold a false bill of goods about what love is. We were all told that the emotional combination of fear, affection, lust, and excitement that was called “being in love” is the only valid prerequisite to marriage. That this state of emotions ought to be permanent once married, and that if no longer present then you can’t be “happy” and therefore the marriage is no longer valid or useful.

This is the very premise for liberal progressive gays to launch their assault on marriage? And the only defense you have is that, “well nobody sees marriage work, so they ought to be able to do whatever they want”?

You have to demand a better reason to change the lives of millions based on something as weak as “being in love.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Now you’re just obfuscating.

Nope, I’m giving an honest representation of my perceptions.

…]or even people who want to marry their pets.

That one is specifically a non-issue. But I have concerns that explaining why may severely derail the thread.

How is it logically consistent for you to deny that these communities …] their desire to define marriage however they want

Can’t say that I know such a community to exists in the USA outside the subjunctive mood of speech.

and then turn around and insist that the Church …] that they’re wrong?

Please clarify. I’ve not insisted that the Church is wrong. I’m not sure of the origins of the above. What I did say is I have no opposition to people of the same gender engaging in the civil contract of marriage.

to redefine something that would impact the greater to such an extreme degree.

If you are talking about the “Sacrament of Matrimony” I don’t think that any one is suggesting that be redefined. Rather what is being sought is the ability to engage in the civil contract of marriage.

I thought materialists were all about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few?

To find what I am all about please feel free to ask me questions or review my messages in other threads. You may find that I don’t perfectly conform to the persona that you may have in mind.

We were all told…] is the only valid prerequisite to marriage. That this state of emotions ought to be permanent once married, and that if no longer present then you can’t be “happy” and therefore the marriage is no longer valid or useful.

Love isn’t a requirement for legal marriage. But if you plan on spending the rest of your life (or some significant number of years) with some one it may be easier if you love the person.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Nope, I’m giving an honest representation of my perceptions.

So your basing your understanding on subjectivism and relativism.

That one is specifically a non-issue. But I have concerns that explaining why may severely derail the thread.

It’s not a “non-issue” to those who desire it. Your objection is circular.

Can’t say that I know such a community to exists in the USA outside the subjunctive mood of speech.

Then if you don’t know, nor have ever even considered it or the implications of it, then it’s safe to say that you haven’t critically examined the issue. That’s called not doing your due dilligence.

Please clarify. I’ve not insisted that the Church is wrong. I’m not sure of the origins of the above. What I did say is I have no opposition to people of the same gender engaging in the civil contract of marriage.

Nor does it seem that you’ve done a thorough investigation as to the true end of their fight for gay marriage. There end is not equality, it’s the destruction of marriage itself. This admission was from a gay journalist. So, if you believe that their end is merely a “civil contract”, then you have believed a lie. So you must ask yourself, are the real implications of such an act in the common interest of the millions in our society who are married?

If you are talking about the “Sacrament of Matrimony” I don’t think that any one is suggesting that be redefined. Rather what is being sought is the ability to engage in the civil contract of marriage.

Then you’re not paying attention. That’s exactly what THEY are asking for.

To find what I am all about please feel free to ask me questions or review my messages in other threads. You may find that I don’t perfectly conform to the persona that you may have in mind.

Are you not a materialist? Are you not an atheist?

Love isn’t a requirement for legal marriage. But if you plan on spending the rest of your life (or some significant number of years) with some one it may be easier if you love the person.

What is love?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Hi, Thinking! I miss that Orangutan avatar you had; he was a cool little dude. But down to your comments. I don’t think this post was written for atheists such as yourself, who have had time to actually think about what they’re saying. It was more intended for the YouTube style atheist - you know, the loudmouthed bears of very little brain.

So, looking at your comments, I’m intrigued…

Nope.

Oh, really? Well, what do you believe in that isn’t scientifically verifiable? No agenda; just curious what an atheist believes isn’t chemical, biological, mineral, zoological, or physical (in short).

Whether it is a “right” or not seems to depend on where one lives. But right here we’ve gotten into territory where people could be speaking about different things without realizing it. When people are defending marriage they are some times defending “the sacrament of Matrimony.”

The Catholic does that partially; but she also believes it is a natural institution - inferior to the sacramental marriage, as a sign is inferior to the actual thing, but no less real or important. After all, if you screw with the signs, you screw with people’s ability to find the real thing.

So we’re in it, AFAIK, for both. (You probably already know this; I’m just reiterating it for clarity’s sake - particularly my own.)

People that are promoting gay marriage are usually promoting the ability for some one to be able to engage in the civil contract of marriage. While related these are not quite the same thing.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying…

marriage as an entity itself does not equal the civil contract of marriage.

Am I correct in my understanding of what you said? If such is the case, I agree with this. Marriage exists outside of the state, I think, and the state can only recognise and regulate it, as is in its best interest. But it needn’t, and even without religion, I think marriage would still exist as a fact. What do you think?

BTW:My stand point is that if two people of the same gender what to be able to draw such a contract for each other I have no opposition to it.

Well, love isn’t a requirement for marriage. While it’s nice to have and a motivator for marriage it’s not the only one. I had a roommate that had an arrangement to get married to some one that she didn’t care for (and she really hated his mother). Then there have been also been people that have gotten married from pregnancy scares, pregnancies, tax benefits, status, perceived protection, and other reasons without love.

True; very true. Would you agree, then, emotions and sex are not sufficient for a marriage to be realised, legally or otherwise?

 

[TarkanAttila]

You’ve raised good points.

As I understand it the Catholic Church distinguishes between a legal state-recognized marriage and the Sacrament of Matrimony and that two people being married haven’t necessarily engaged in the Sacrament of Matrimony, as in a baptized man and baptized woman becoming husband and wife through a sacred covenant with God (please correct me if I am wrong on any of that). I do wonder how Catholic “literate” the general public is on the sacrament of Matrimony as defined in Catholicism.

The Catholic duties of matrimony are not requirements for legal marriage; it doesn’t have to last until death nor is there obligation to be open to the possibility of children.

It did not used to be this way; this view of marriage is actually very, very modern. I mean, heck, even we Henry VIII divorced, it’s not like anyone else was allowed to. Divorce was pretty rare until… 50, 60 years ago. Was it not?

I’m not so much making an argument as lamenting the woeful state of marriage.“Marriage” seems to be synonymous with “state recognised friendship with benefits” these days. And I nor anybody else has a reason to legally recognise such a thing - any more than I do to legally recognise any other form of… how to put this… non-familial, non-business friendship.

On another note, I think people construct the slippery slope - which is not always a fallacy - because of a commonality they see - the one I just pointed out. There’s no longer anything particularly special or useful about the contemporary, secular definition of “marriage” to make it worth the state’s time or effort to maintain it - or exclude anyone else from it than anyone who wants to say they are “married”. Marriage used to have a purpose specially conducive to the wellbeing of society- the raising and production of children, as well as the primary education and protection thereof.

Now, with contraception, divorce, abortion, and the rest, all that has been destroyed in self-preservational, self-serving bids to define “marriage” as something less constrictive… til it is nothing really at all.

 

[inocente]

So, atheists, I ask you the following:

1. Do you believe the only things that actually exist are scientifically verifiable?
   If yes, continue on.
2. Do you believe -]gay/-] marriage is a right and just relationship between two people?
   If yes, continue on.
3. Why do you believe point 2)?
   If you say “because we should prevent two people from loving each other”, we have a contradiction in terms.

See, in light of 1), “love” (3) is a meaningless term, because “love” is neither scientifically verifiable nor falsifiable.

As your profile says you’re “Critical-Thinking”, did it not occur to you that the word “gay” in your argument is superfluous, as the contradiction would apply to heterosexual marriage as well?

But don’t let it get you down, opponents of equal marriage have never come up with anything other than desperately poor arguments.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

As your profile says you’re “Critical-Thinking”, did it not occur to you that the word “gay” in your argument is superfluous, as the contradiction would apply to heterosexual marriage as well?

But don’t let it get you down, opponents of equal marriage have never come up with anything other than desperately poor arguments.

It’s real simple, it’s utterly unreasonable and impractical to completely redefine an institution affecting millions of people based on the whims of a extremely small minority who’s only real end is to destroy the institution itself.

 

[inocente]

It’s real simple, it’s utterly unreasonable and impractical to completely redefine an institution affecting millions of people based on the whims of a extremely small minority who’s only real end is to destroy the institution itself.

That’s moral relativism = what is morally good depends on how many people want it.

Anyway here in Spain and in the Pope’s home country of Argentina it was approved by congress with popular support, so no it’s not a small minority who want it.

And can you cite any evidence that it puts heterosexuals off marrying?