Materialist atheism and gay "marriage"

[ThinkingSapien]

I can’t help but thing there is a bit of a combative tone that is starting to come into play here. I come in peace! I’m interested in having a discussion and share perspectives. I’ve not got intent or interest in attacking the Catholic Church or any other Church.

So your basing your understanding on subjectivism and relativism.

Nope, my previous encounters with arguments which mention siblings marrying were generally part of slippery slope arguments. That’s been my experience. There’s not need to invoke subjectivism or relativism.

There end is not equality, it’s the destruction of marriage itself.
This admission was from a gay journalist.

I think you may be talking about “Masha Gessen.” I’m familiar with sound bites and clips that were taken from some presentation that she’s given but haven’t yet found the entire presentation or the context in which it was presented. I also don’t think she’s representation of the gay people that I’ve talked to about the issue; it’s quite possible that each individual has their own motivation for wanting gay marriages recognized, including some that plan to never get married.

So, if you believe that their end is merely a “civil contract”, then you have believed a lie.

A change of civil marriage is one of many goals that have been expressed by the LGBT communities. Right now I don’t think the other goals are related to this thread.

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?

I’m aware of what some have asserted the end consequences to be (ex: break down of society). But these are not outcomes of which I have yet been convinced.

Are you not an atheist?

Am I an Atheist?
Because of the inconsistency in how the word “atheist” is used in these forums it doesn’t seem to be a word that reliably communicates my disposition. Because of the spectrum of positions that it may communicate (some of which may fit me, some of which do not) and because I do not have knowledge of which of those positions that you associate with the word I don’t think that “yes” or “no” will sufficiently answer the question. Right now the label “non-religious” is the one that I’ve found to be most fitting. If you would like to define the criteria that you are familiar with for whether or not the label is applicable

Are you not a materialist?

Am I a Materialist
That is to ask do I think that matter and energy are the only things that exists. Matter and energy would definite be part of my description of the world.

Now there are also state and relationship descriptions that are dependent on the existence of matter an energy. These relationships and states themselves may not always be considered matter or energy, but they don’t seem to have meaning in a context that excludes matter and energy. For example, “explosions” are a description of matter and energy in motion. But if you remove the matter and energy from an explosion what’s left? There are also the concepts often labeled with adjectives used as mass nouns; because there may be several instances of objects that have a certain some believe that the attribute also has existence that is not dependent on the presence of the a physical object (this almost seems Platonic).

To include what you seem to be getting at with the question of “what is love” I don’t think that emotions have been sufficiently defined to say what they are beyond the effects they have on people and other descriptions that are themselves rooted in emotion. Example, when talking about fear I could include the impact it has on amygdala, heart, and limbic system, the chemicals that are released as a result, and some associated emotions. But that won’t capture the experience of the emotion; until some one has experience it them self they may not understand. Which is related to your next question:

What is love?

There’s a spectrum of emotional dispositions that have all been labeled as “love”, desire, infatuation, affinity, so on. I don’t think I can find a definition that would encapsulate the wide spectrum of concepts that the word encompasses.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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

Here’s the paragraph:

The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence;** it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous**; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.

This clearly refers to matters of JUSTICE. Love does not choose favorites. That is different from saying it is disinterested, with respect to the beloved. Love *means *taking an interest in someone.

And yes, agape and philia are two different words. But it is possible for a person to claim that, at the core, they are the unified in Christ’s love for us – the same love we are to offer others.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Hi, Thinking! I miss that Orangutan avatar you had;

I do too. It just disappeared one day. I don’t know why.

Want to let you know I’ve gotten pulled into something else and will try to reply to your questions later on.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Here’s the paragraph:

This clearly refers to matters of JUSTICE. Love does not choose favorites. That is different from saying it is disinterested, with respect to the beloved. Love *means *taking an interest in someone.

No, the subject of the whole chapter us “Charity”, I.e. love.

And yes, agape and philia are two different words. But it is possible for a person to claim that, at the core, they are the unified in Christ’s love for us – the same love we are to offer others.

It’s possible, but not logical. It seems that you’re just assuming your conclusion in your premise.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I can’t help but thing there is a bit of a combative tone that is starting to come into play here. I come in peace! I’m interested in having a discussion and share perspectives. I’ve not got intent or interest in attacking the Catholic Church or any other Church.

Nope, my previous encounters with arguments which mention siblings marrying were generally part of slippery slope arguments. That’s been my experience. There’s not need to invoke subjectivism or relativism.

Well, with all due respect, despite your intent, that’s what your advocating.

I think you may be talking about “Masha Gessen.” I’m familiar with sound bites and clips that were taken from some presentation that she’s given but haven’t yet found the entire presentation or the context in which it was presented. I also don’t think she’s representation of the gay people that I’ve talked to about the issue; it’s quite possible that each individual has their own motivation for wanting gay marriages recognized, including some that plan to never get married.

That’s what you’re going with? Either way, it’s still not a valid pretext.

A change of civil marriage is one of many goals that have been expressed by the LGBT communities. Right now I don’t think the other goals are related to this thread.

Again, another weak premise. Their goals and ends are the very reason they demand the change. If you say I should ignore their goals, then I perfectly in my right to ignore their claims as well.

I’m aware of what some have asserted the end consequences to be (ex: break down of society). But these are not outcomes of which I have yet been convinced.

Of course not. Because no one knows the future. It’s easy to invoke anything for any reason for the sake of the future, because then you can just ignore the consequences and do whatever you want. Then when whatever it is you wanted has serious consequences, you can just say, “well, there’s no way we could’ve known that this was going to happen.”

Am I an Atheist?
Because of the inconsistency in how the word “atheist” is used in these forums it doesn’t seem to be a word that reliably communicates my disposition. Because of the spectrum of positions that it may communicate (some of which may fit me, some of which do not) and because I do not have knowledge of which of those positions that you associate with the word I don’t think that “yes” or “no” will sufficiently answer the question. Right now the label “non-religious” is the one that I’ve found to be most fitting. If you would like to define the criteria that you are familiar with for whether or not the label is applicable

A simple “no” would suffice.

Am I a Materialist
That is to ask do I think that matter and energy are the only things that exists. Matter and energy would definite be part of my description of the world.

Now there are also state and relationship descriptions that are dependent on the existence of matter an energy. These relationships and states themselves may not always be considered matter or energy, but they don’t seem to have meaning in a context that excludes matter and energy. For example, “explosions” are a description of matter and energy in motion. But if you remove the matter and energy from an explosion what’s left? There are also the concepts often labeled with adjectives used as mass nouns; because there may be several instances of objects that have a certain some believe that the attribute also has existence that is not dependent on the presence of the a physical object (this almost seems Platonic).

A simple “yes” would have sufficed.

To include what you seem to be getting at with the question of “what is love” I don’t think that emotions have been sufficiently defined to say what they are beyond the effects they have on people and other descriptions that are themselves rooted in emotion. Example, when talking about fear I could include the impact it has on amygdala, heart, and limbic system, the chemicals that are released as a result, and some associated emotions. But that won’t capture the experience of the emotion; until some one has experience it them self they may not understand.

Love isn’t an emotion. You assume its an emotion based on your predisposition to materialism.

Which is related to your next question:
There’s a spectrum of emotional dispositions that have all been labeled as “love”, desire, infatuation, affinity, so on. I don’t think I can find a definition that would encapsulate the wide spectrum of concepts that the word encompasses.

Love is not “feelings” either, love is a choice.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, the subject of the whole chapter us “Charity”, I.e. love.

Yes. In situations where there are competing claims, **love **is disinterested between them, because it harbors the same concern for both parties. I’m not sure what about that is unclear to you.

 

[inocente]

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.

Last post you argued that morality was irrelevant for the entirely different reason that “they reject the notion of objective morals to begin with. To them morality is relative and subjective, so the objection is baseless.”

If only we know who “they” are, and why it’s impractical to extend civil marriage, and why you’re confusing religious marriage with the rather modern invention of civil 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?

You’re the one who argued that might is right, remember you said you “don’t put the desires of a small few over the necessity of millions”? Or is your earlier post now inoperative?

But congratulations, your reductio ad Hitlerum wins Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies hands down.

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

Now come on, make up your mind. You post this at 3:34 pm yet at 1:16 pm you said the opposite - “You don’t put the desires of a small few 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.

Can’t believe you’re arguing that the morality of slavery depends on how many slaves there are. So where’s the cut off, would 11.3276% make slavery immoral?

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.

When you try to lecture someone about ranting, it’s probably not a good idea to do it in the form of a rant, especially when that person hasn’t ranted anyway.

But I see you’ve awarded me a lapel badge of “progressive” and have made me a member of your secret “they” conspiracy, and I must now work to destroy all that is good and fair, because, well, apparently that’s my job.

Now you’re just being obtuse.

OK, to be crystal clear, what I meant is that if congress votes as you want then you probably wouldn’t accuse them of “political lies and equivocative platitudes by politicians”.

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.

So it’s my fault you can’t tell me who “they” are? I’m supposed to read your mind? Give me a clue, name a few of them.

And you didn’t ask for a reason to extend equality of marriage, but if you did I’d say that a fair society is better than an unfair society.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Yes. In situations where there are competing claims, **love **is disinterested between them, because it harbors the same concern for both parties. I’m not sure what about that is unclear to you.

No, love is disinterested because it seeks the highest good for the other’s and for God’s sake, not for any interest or benefit of the subject’s own concerns or emotions. It has nothing to do with “competing claims”. Where did you get that from?

 

[inocente]

Uh… points to top right of his post

And irrelevant.

*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.*

Not a rationalist? Are saying Christianity is irrational?

Anyhow, you’re agreed that your argument applies to all marriage and so your thread is misnamed.

*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”.*

When did you first get this notion that you speak for all Catholics, including even the (not insubstantial number) who agree with equal marriage?

Whatever, no one is asking to change any faith’s sacrament of marriage, but rather to extend secular civil marriage, which in a democracy is a matter for all citizens even if you think non-Catholics should defer to your judgment in these matters.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, love is disinterested because it seeks the highest good for the other’s and for God’s sake, not for any interest or benefit of the subject’s own concerns or emotions.

And I never denied the bolded text. Reread through everything I’ve said.

But the bolded text is not the meaning of disinterested. Disinterested, in English at least, means lacking any vested interest in the relevant person. Jesus has a vested interest in each one of us, so he certainly isn’t disinterested.

It has nothing to do with “competing claims”. Where did you get that from?

Once again, reread what I said.

 

[wanstronian]

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?

I think that if they’re not scientifically verifiable, there’s no way of knowing that they exist. I think that in principle, if not (yet) in practice, science is able to verify everything that exists.

If yes, continue on.
2) Do you believe gay marriage is a right and just relationship between two people?

I think “marriage” is a valid relationship between two people. I think that whether it’s gay or straight is totally irrelevant.

If yes, continue on.
3) Why do you believe point 2)?

Because it is unethical to deny recognition or validity of a relationship just because of the sexuality of those involved.

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

When should we ever prevent two people from loving each other? How would you even try? People don’t choose to love, so they can’t be forcibly prevented from loving.

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.

Well, I support gay marriage in the interests of equality and human rights, not in the interests of “love.”

I also think “love” is subjective, inasmuch as there’s currently no way of showing that it’s experienced in the same way by different people.

I don’t see a contradiction, I see a gap in knowledge. History is rife with gaps in knowledge that have steadily been filled - by science.

Do you think you can hold that empiricism is true and that “love” is the bond which unites two gays in marriage?

Love may or may not be the bond - but whatever the bond is, it’s as valid for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals.

Tell me how this works. Do you believe “love” is empirically verifiable?

In the same way that sight is empirically verifiable - one can describe the physical interactions that result in sight, but one cannot describe the experience of seeing. Sight is still a physical phenomenon though.

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.

I’m an empiricist - I think philosophy is interesting, but I also believe it has never revealed a single fact about anything. This applies equally to its subset, theology.

By definition, to show that something is true you need to provide evidence. There’s no way around that.

p.s., I’m aware the thread’s moved on, but thought I’d share anyway!

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Last post you argued that morality was irrelevant for the entirely different reason that “they reject the notion of objective morals to begin with. To them morality is relative and subjective, so the objection is baseless.”

No, I said I wasn’t making a moral argument. You do understand the difference between a moral argument and a non-moral argument, don’t you?

If only we know who “they” are, and why it’s impractical to extend civil marriage, and why you’re confusing religious marriage with the rather modern invention of civil marriage.

The better question is why are you, a professed baptist, creating for yourself something that doesn’t exist, or ought not to exist if he/she actually decided to be faithful. Civil marriages are a joke. Just look at the New Jersey state study on civil marriage.

You’re the one who argued that might is right, remember you said you “don’t put the desires of a small few over the necessity of millions”? Or is your earlier post now inoperative?

But congratulations, your reductio ad Hitlerum wins Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies hands down.

The charge is clear, democratic process can no more make murder legal than any other evil. The Holocaust, Pol pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin, all had the approval of the people, just so long as you weren’t their targets.

Now come on, make up your mind. You post this at 3:34 pm yet at 1:16 pm you said the opposite - “You don’t put the desires of a small few over the necessity of millions” .

No, your being intellectually dishonest by trying to twist my words.

Can’t believe you’re arguing that the morality of slavery depends on how many slaves there are. So where’s the cut off, would 11.3276% make slavery immoral?

Again, more intellectual dishonesty.

But I see you’ve awarded me a lapel badge of “progressive” and have made me a member of your secret “they” conspiracy, and I must now work to destroy all that is good and fair, because, well, apparently that’s my job.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

OK, to be crystal clear, what I meant is that if congress votes as you want then you probably wouldn’t accuse them of “political lies and equivocative altitudes by politicians”.

No, because congress has no right to vote on anything like this. Congress, or government in general, has zero business putting their hands in marriage. Thats where the constitution comes in. It tells the government what it can and can’t do, not vice versa.

So it’s my fault you can’t tell me who “they” are? I’m supposed to read your mind? Give me a clue, name a few of them.

“They” are the GLBT community.

And you didn’t ask for a reason to extend equality of marriage, but if you did I’d say that a fair society is better than an unfair society.

There is no sufficient reason, not in the context or for the ends they’re pursuing.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

And I never denied the bolded text. Reread through everything I’ve said.

But the bolded text is not the meaning of disinterested. Disinterested, in English at least, means lacking any vested interest in the relevant person. Jesus has a vested interest in each one of us, so he certainly isn’t disinterested.

Once again, reread what I said.

Anyway…

You know what, have it your way.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

Love may or may not be the bond - but whatever the bond is, it’s as valid for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals.

Since love needs no legitimization (two men who love each other can live together without benefit of clergy) the bond for homosexual marriage is nothing more nor less than the legitimization of sodomy. By law marriage between two sodomite men will legally enhance their opportunities to adopt heterosexual little boys … for what purpose?

Our civilization seems to frantically search for ways to exploit children, from killing the unborn to sexually corrupting them while they are young. Even NAMBLA has openly campaigned to legalize sexual relations between adults and children.