Materialist atheism and gay "marriage"

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

They don’t see it as judging an institution. Secular individuals look at the concept of marriage in a radically different light than you and I do. They think it has no essential meaning, but can be redefined according to their own idea of the good.

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to be permanent once married, and that if no longer present then you can’t be “happy” and therefore the marriage is no longer valid or useful.

I agree.

And the only defense you have is that, “well nobody sees marriage work, so they ought to be able to do whatever they want”?

I’m not making an argument about what ought to be. Marriage ought to be publicly recognized to be a permanent commitment between a man and a woman. But it stopped being that long ago, and there is no chance of putting the cat back in the bag, in this environment.

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

But most secular arguments I see in defense of traditional marriage rely on some notion of marriage that very few people in the culture have ever experienced. If we want people to know that marriage is greater than just being in love, we have to show them what that means.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

That’s moral relativism, but what is morally good not not in any way depend on how many people want it.

Sorry, morality is irrelevant in this case, they reject the notion of objective morals to begin with. To them morality is relative and subjective, so the objection is baseless.

The argument is not an appeal to morality but to practicality. You don’t put the desires of a small few over the necessity of millions.

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.

That’s because of political lies and equivocative platitudes by politicians, not by actually examining the facts.

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

That’s not what I said, they want to destroy the institution, and it’s on the record. So they’re lying about what they want. It’s not about equal rights, it’s not about love, it’s about ending the institution.

So if that’s their intent and the reason that they want gay marriage, it’s no reason at all. So they don’t deserve it.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

They don’t see it as judging an institution. Secular individuals look at the concept of marriage in a radically different light than you and I do. They think it has no essential meaning, but can be redefined according to their own idea of the good.

And? This is just moral indifference. It doesn’t matter what they think it means or if to them it means nothing at all. They have no right to objectively say one way or another.

Subjectivism and relativism always sounds nice and pretty, but it’s impossible to live it.

I’m not making an argument about what ought to be. Marriage ought to be publicly recognized to be a permanent commitment between a man and a woman. But it stopped being that long ago, and there is no chance of putting the cat back in the bag, in this environment.

With all due respect, you’re a Catholic Christian, you ought to be. Truth isn’t told by a clock or a calendar.

But most secular arguments I see in defense of traditional marriage rely on some notion of marriage that very few people in the culture have ever experienced. If we want people to know that marriage is greater than just being in love, we have to show them what that means.

Again, even if everyone believes a lie, does that make the lie true? Of course not.

 

[TarkanAttila]

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.

Except, Baptist, I was addressing a particular audience and a particular contradiction they are liable to hold as true.

I was NOT addressing people who don’t believe in God on sound philosophical or logical principle (although I would debate the existence of such a thing). I was addressing the idiots who say “I don’t believe in God because he is not scientifically verifiable”. Well, neither is love. And yet that’s probably just the argument - “love” - that soft-brained atheists (a particular kind of atheist, not all atheists are) will use to argue in favour of gay marriage. I.e, “why would you want to stop two people from loving each other?”

You see? So I’m not saying marriage is not built on “love”. I am saying “love” is not scientifically verifiable. So if you want to build your view on sexuality on “love”, you must also stop ignoring God simply because His existence cannot be proved within the natural sciences. It’s not about marriage. Nor is it necessarily about atheism. It’s an exercise about materialism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And? This is just moral indifference. It doesn’t matter what they think it means or if to them it means nothing at all. They have no right to objectively say one way or another.

Subjectivism and relativism always sounds nice and pretty, but it’s impossible to live it.

They are NOT relativists. They believe in a very concrete moral law, and it is a law which judges our current marriage system to be discriminatory. Once again, I do not agree with them. But you don’t seem interested in understanding their viewpoint. Your railing against them is its own reward.

With all due respect, you’re a Catholic Christian, you ought to be. Truth isn’t told by a clock or a calendar.

Huh? “I ought to be” what? I hold the Catholic view on marriage. Perhaps you misread what I wrote?

Again, even if everyone believes a lie, does that make the lie true? Of course not.

The question is one of evangelism, and that’s what you don’t seem to understand. We’ve already lost people’s hearts, and you expect us to win their votes?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

They are NOT relativists. They believe in a very concrete moral law, and it is a law which judges our current marriage system to be discriminatory. Once again, I do not agree with them. But you don’t seem interested in understanding their viewpoint. Your railing against them is its own reward.

And where did this concrete moral “law” come from?

Huh? “I ought to be” what? I hold the Catholic view on marriage. Perhaps you misread what I wrote?

It’s an article of Faith, and you have an obligation to defend it. The whole principle of human society is based on the concept of the family: father, mother, child/children. You don’t abandon it just because society “isn’t going that way.”

The question is one of evangelism, and that’s what you don’t seem to understand. We’ve already lost people’s hearts, and you expect us to win their votes?

The truth doesn’t depend on majority rule. The truth is reality as it was intended by God, not by a democratic vote. You win people’s hearts by demonstrating the truth clearly, not by relagating it to the trash heap in exchange for the “popular” opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And where did this concrete moral “law” come from?

Moral philosophers, mostly. It’s not all bad, but it’s not divinely inspired either.

It’s an article of Faith, and you have an obligation to defend it.

I am defending it, in two ways: (1) With my life, by living a faithful Christian witness to marriage, and (2) by emphasizing that speaking the truth without love is mere saber-rattling.

The truth doesn’t depend on majority rule. The truth is reality as it was intended by God, not by a democratic vote. You win people’s hearts by demonstrating the truth clearly, not by relagating it to the trash heap in exchange for the “popular” opinion.

False. You win people’s hearts by showing them God’s love.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Moral philosophers, mostly. It’s not all bad, but it’s not divinely inspired either.

And where did they get their moral law?

Appealing to authority only works so far. All you have pointed to is that their “moral law” has come from someone else’s “moral law”.

In other words, it’s entirely subjective, I.e. based on or dependent on the subject. In this case these “philosophers”.
Sorry, but most if not all modern philosophy is in fact subjective. Of course it makes objective moral claims, but that violates the nature of the philosophy. In other words, its self-contradictory. They can say that gay marriage is moral. But that is only based on their feelings and views. Subjectivism doesn’t make claims at all, it expresses feelings and thoughts. So no matter how they feel, they can’t objectively posit anything. Because I can just say, “well I don’t.” And they have no right to infringe on my truth, unless by force. Which then they contradict themselves.

I am defending it, in two ways: (1) With my life, by living a faithful Christian witness to marriage, and (2) by emphasizing that speaking the truth without love is mere saber-rattling.

What do mean by “love”. Kindness? Being nice? Love, especially the most necessary love, isn’t always kind or nice. Surely you know about disinterested love? Its the love that a faither has for his alcoholic son, while he pours all his son’s liquor down the drain.

We shouldn’t make the mistake of(rightly)loving sinners by (wrongly)loving sins. Christ was both hard headed and soft hearted. He is both truth and love. Not one or the other.

False. You win people’s hearts by showing them God’s love.

No. Not exactly. Christ spoke the truth first, “REPENT, and believe in the Gospel.” He spoke the truth first always, then He showed love, after they repented.

It can’t be done backwards. It’s just wishful thinking.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And where did they get their moral law?

Appealing to authority only works so far. All you have pointed to is that their “moral law” has come from someone else’s “moral law”.

In other words, it’s entirely subjective, I.e. based on or dependent on the subject. In this case these “philosophers”.
Sorry, but most if not all modern philosophy is in fact subjective. Of course it makes objective moral claims, but that violates the nature of the philosophy. In other words, its self-contradictory. They can say that gay marriage is moral. But that is only based on their feelings and views. Subjectivism doesn’t make claims at all, it expresses feelings and thoughts. So no matter how they feel, they can’t objectively posit anything. Because I can just say, “well I don’t.” And they have no right to infringe on my truth, unless by force. Which then they contradict themselves.

I am a philosophy instructor at a secular university, and the claims you make about secular philosophy are laughably false. It is not based primarily on subjective claims. Sure, a lot of the majority views are false, and misguided. But philosophers hardly ever talk about feelings.

What do mean by “love”. Kindness? Being nice? Love, especially the most necessary love, isn’t always kind or nice. Surely you know about disinterested love? Its the love that a faither has for his alcoholic son, while he pours all his son’s liquor down the drain.

No, I agree that love is not being nice. It is always kind, however, in the sense that it always is compassionate. If the father of the alcoholic pours the liquor down the drain, but does not express to his son how precious and lovable he is, then the father is not being loving.

We shouldn’t make the mistake of(rightly)loving sinners by (wrongly)loving sins. Christ was both hard headed and soft hearted. He is both truth and love. Not one or the other.

Agreed.

No. Not exactly. Christ spoke the truth first, “REPENT, and believe in the Gospel.”

Uh, “repent and believe” is not a truth claim. It is an exhortation.

He spoke the truth first always, then He showed love, after they repented.

The woman at the well? The thief on the cross? In fact, I’m not sure that anyone in the gospels was converted by the truth, absent love. This sounds VERY off, to me.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I am a philosophy instructor at a secular university, and the claims you make about secular philosophy are laughably false. It is not based primarily on subjective claims. Sure, a lot of the majority views are false, and misguided. But philosophers hardly ever talk about feelings.

You didn’t answer my question either. Where do they get their moral “law”.

No, I agree that love is not being nice. It is always kind, however, in the sense that it always is compassionate. If the father of the alcoholic pours the liquor down the drain, but does not express to his son how precious and lovable he is, then the father is not being loving.

I doubt at the time the son cares at all about the supposed affection of the father; he just tossed out his favorite liquor. You don’t understand true disinterested love. It’s love for another person void of any feeling or emotion. It’s seeking the highest good for the beloved not because it feels good, or because its compassionate, but because it ought to done.

Uh, “repent and believe” is not a truth claim. It is an exhortation.

It’s an exhortation to truth. Repent. Why? Because self interest and self-willfulness, egoism, is evil and sinful. You need to reorient your life from egoism back to God, back to reality itself. Only by shedding the ego can one begin on the path to happiness and blessedness.

The woman at the well? The thief on the cross? In fact, I’m not sure that anyone in the gospels was converted by the truth, absent love. This sounds VERY off, to me.

The woman at the well, Jesus laid her whole life out in front of her; “you do not have a husband, true, you’ve had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband.”

The thief on the cross testified to his own guilt.

Again, truth before love.

 

[inocente]

Sorry, morality is irrelevant in this case, they reject the notion of objective morals to begin with. To them morality is relative and subjective, so the objection is baseless.

I was referring to the morality of what you said, not what anyone else said.

*The argument is not an appeal to morality but to practicality. You don’t put the desires of a small few over the necessity of millions.
*

Two thirds of the population in Spain approved equal marriage, and here virtually everyone is Catholic. All the polls I’ve seen, like this one say most Catholics in America also approve equal marriage.

Your argument is relativist - we would for instance definitely put the desire of a small number of slaves to be free over the necessity of millions.

But what is this “necessity of millions” here? Do you think equal marriage will make the crops fail or something?

That’s because of political lies and equivocative platitudes by politicians, not by actually examining the facts.

So are you always against democracy, or only when you’re outvoted?

*That’s not what I said, they want to destroy the institution, and it’s on the record. So they’re lying about what they want. It’s not about equal rights, it’s not about love, it’s about ending the institution.

So if that’s their intent and the reason that they want gay marriage, it’s no reason at all. So they don’t deserve it. *

Who on earth are “they”? A secret worldwide conspiracy of atheist lesbians or something? Are “they” watching us right now?

 

[inocente]

Except, Baptist, I was addressing a particular audience and a particular contradiction they are liable to hold as true.

I was NOT addressing people who don’t believe in God on sound philosophical or logical principle (although I would debate the existence of such a thing). I was addressing the idiots who say “I don’t believe in God because he is not scientifically verifiable”. Well, neither is love. And yet that’s probably just the argument - “love” - that soft-brained atheists (a particular kind of atheist, not all atheists are) will use to argue in favour of gay marriage. I.e, “why would you want to stop two people from loving each other?”

You see? So I’m not saying marriage is not built on “love”. I am saying “love” is not scientifically verifiable. So if you want to build your view on sexuality on “love”, you must also stop ignoring God simply because His existence cannot be proved within the natural sciences. It’s not about marriage. Nor is it necessarily about atheism. It’s an exercise about materialism.

It’s not very charitable to say your OP is “addressing the idiots” on CAF. Just because some people don’t believe what you believe is no reason to call them names like “soft-brained”, it doesn’t help your case one little bit. And while we’re on in, there’s no possible relevance to calling me Baptist.

That’s all irrelevant though, your argument applies to any kind of marriage - what applies to one form of love applies to all others.

But I’m glad you recognize that homosexuals can fall in love, a lot of equal marriage opponents seem to think it’s not love, I don’t know where they got that idea but there you go.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You don’t understand true disinterested love. It’s love for another person void of any feeling or emotion. It’s seeking the highest good for the beloved not because it feels good, or because its compassionate, but because it ought to done.

This is false. The work of the cross is a work of compassion, or it is a cruel joke.

You are trying, I expect, to say that Christian love (agape) is not the same as friendship love (philia). But Jesus explicitly denied this. Over and over in John’s gospel, Jesus uses the words agape and philia interchangeably. Peter is asked “Do you love me?” using both words. “Disinterested love” is a contradiction in terms.

The motivation of love is not duty. Rather, the reason we have the power to do our duty is because we love.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I was referring to the morality of what you said, not what anyone else said.

Again, irrelevant, because my argument wasn’t an appeal to morality, but to practicality. It makes no practical sense. You can’t call a circle a square no matter how bad you insist on the “equality” of shapes. One thing is not another thing. X does not equal Y.

You’re attacking a strawman.

Two thirds of the population in Spain approved equal marriage, and here virtually everyone is Catholic. All the polls I’ve seen, like this one say most Catholics in America also approve equal marriage.

Again, irrelevant. So who’s the relativist now? Logically speaking, because the majority of Germans were Nazi’s during the 1940’s, does that mean that the Holocaust was right?

Its an illustration, truth is not subject to opinion polls or democratic votes. You’re just being logically inconsistent.

Your argument is relativist - we would for instance definitely put the desire of a small number of slaves to be free over the necessity of millions.

Wrong again. The slave population in the U.S. numbered during the Civil War was well beyond comparisons to the 3-4% of homosexuals in the U.S.today.

Either way, it’s still not a moral argument.

But what is this “necessity of millions” here? Do you think equal marriage will make the crops fail or something?

No, its about what’s fair. All you progressives rant and rave about what’s “fair”. Well how is it fair to change the definition of marriage that had stood for centuries based on a false claim of equality from an extremely loud, and extremely small, minority. Again, their real aim is to destroy the institution by subjectivising and relativising it. They get their way, and marriage doesn’t mean anything. If it doesn’t mean anything, then it is nothing.

So are you always against democracy, or only when you’re outvoted?

Now you’re just being obtuse.

Who on earth are “they”? A secret worldwide conspiracy of atheist lesbians or something? Are “they” watching us right now?

Like I said, obtuse. If you don’t know who “they” are then you really can’t debate the issue either. Nor can you come up with a valid reason that marriage should be redefined. All you can come up with is strawmen and other fallacious arguments.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

This is false. The work of the cross is a work of compassion, or it is a cruel joke.

You are trying, I expect, to say that Christian love (agape) is not the same as friendship love (philia). But Jesus explicitly denied this. Over and over in John’s gospel, Jesus uses the words agape and philia interchangeably. Peter is asked “Do you love me?” using both words. “Disinterested love” is a contradiction in terms.

The motivation of love is not duty. Rather, the reason we have the power to do our duty is because we love.

Sorry,but your equivocating terms. If philia and agape were meant to be the same thing then they would be one word, not two. You seem to be fashioning an argument to suit your ideology, instead of conforming your understanding to theology.

Disinterested love is a teaching of the Church. CCC pa. 1829

 

[TarkanAttila]

And while we’re on in, there’s no possible relevance to calling me Baptist.

Uh… points to top right of his post

That’s all irrelevant though, your argument applies to any kind of marriage - what applies to one form of love applies to all others.

I don’t deny that.

What I deny is that “love” is a sufficient argument for gay marriage - or any relationship - to be legally recognised.

I also deny that one can hold a view contrary to my own without also failing to be a rationalist materialist. That’s my point. It’s obviously irrelevant to you, who - I assume - is a Baptist Christian, which - I assume - means you are neither a rationalist nor a materialist.

But I’m glad you recognize that homosexuals can fall in love, a lot of equal marriage opponents seem to think it’s not love, I don’t know where they got that idea but there you go.

What modern Americans call “love” is a capricious thing not worth two cents. When people marry because they are “in love” - gay or straight - that’s as good as marrying because they both happen to have green shirts in their wardrobes.

But Catholics do not call this “love”. What we call “love” might more readily be called “sacrificial perseverance” - the desire for the good of the other, even if it kills you. That’s still not enough to distinguish marriage from the love of families, or the love of friends, but it’s a hell of a lot more concrete than mushy “feeelings”.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Uh… points to top right of his post

I don’t deny that.

What I deny is that “love” is a sufficient argument for gay marriage - or any relationship - to be legally recognised.

I also deny that one can hold a view contrary to my own without also failing to be a rationalist materialist. That’s my point. It’s obviously irrelevant to you, who - I assume - is a Baptist Christian, which - I assume - means you are neither a rationalist nor a materialist.

What modern Americans call “love” is a capricious thing not worth two cents. When people marry because they are “in love” - gay or straight - that’s as good as marrying because they both happen to have green shirts in their wardrobes.

But Catholics do not call this “love”. What we call “love” might more readily be called “sacrificial perseverance” - the desire for the good of the other, even if it kills you. That’s still not enough to distinguish marriage from the love of families, or the love of friends, but it’s a hell of a lot more concrete than mushy “feeelings”.

…The Church calls it disinterested love.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Grey Pilgrim, Prodigal Son, you’re both right. Stop talking over each other and you’ll quickly see you’re both saying the same thing.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Grey Pilgrim, Prodigal Son, you’re both right. Stop talking over each other and you’ll quickly see you’re both saying the same thing.

Sorry, Tarkan, I refuse to accept a relativistic or subjectivistic position of marriage, especially from someone professing to be Catholic. He’s scandalizing the Church by doing so.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking
**
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. **

I meant it seriously. I suppose one can wink at one kind of perversity and condemn another. But in the case I posed, the link between them is tenuous at best. Nor do I think the slippery slope is not applicable in the case of incestuous marriage. Who would have thought even thirty years ago that Western Civilization was sliding gleefully right into Sodom and Gomorrah?