My personal take on gay "marriage"

[Bradski]

Why ought we to discount religious arguments? (Unless, of course, you can scientifically prove God doesn’t exist)

An argument needs a premise, which must include logical statements backed up by evidence, which then leads to a conclusion. So:

If we allow A, then the result will be B as seen by the evidence X, Y and Z which we would consider to be harmful. Therefore we should not allow A.

A religious argument isn’t actually an argument. It simply says that we shouldn’t allow A because…my deity/scripture/authority says so.

You can turn it into an argument if you say something along the lines of:

My God/scripture/authority says that if we allow A, then the result will be B as seen by the evidence X, Y and Z which we would consider to be harmful. Therefore we should not allow A.

I’ve no problem with you starting your premise with god/scripture/authority, but you can’t use it again as evidence or again simply as a conclusion.

 

[Bradski]

Would morality be considered spiritual matters? Abrahamic religions tend to spiritualize morality, but do all religions do so I wonder?

I consider (not surprisingly) that morality is an entirely secular matter.

 

[Latinitas]

An argument needs a premise, which must include logical statements backed up by evidence, which then leads to a conclusion. So:

If we allow A, then the result will be B as seen by the evidence X, Y and Z which we would consider to be harmful. Therefore we should not allow A.

A religious argument isn’t actually an argument. It simply says that we shouldn’t allow A because…my deity/scripture/authority says so.

You can turn it into an argument if you say something along the lines of:

My God/scripture/authority says that if we allow A, then the result will be B as seen by the evidence X, Y and Z which we would consider to be harmful. Therefore we should not allow A.

I’ve no problem with you starting your premise with god/scripture/authority, but you can’t use it again as evidence or again simply as a conclusion.

But appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy. It’s only in modern times that people have begun to thought that appealing to authority is fallacious, and even there it’s admitted to be informal (that is, not illogical, just a poor hermeneutic of argument). But this reveals a rationalistic presupposition (no pun intended) that I and all traditional Christians don’t accept, and which has never been proven, and on the contrary has been sufficiently refuted by apologists.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Latinitas]

But…even if the God that Christians worship made this clear to them (tho I don’t agree this is the case)…the Gods of other religions/beliefs may not teach their worshippers the same thing.

Do you feel it’s okay to tell people of other religions that they must follow what your God says?

Yes, since Our God is the true God, and our faith the True Faith.

Or do you believe in religious freedom?

I believe in religious freedom in the sense that persons ought not to be compelled to faith, but I do not believe in an unrestricted freedom of religion which treats Catholic faith as equal to non-Catholic faiths. Christ, says, St. Augustine, is not valued at all unless He is valued above all.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Latinitas]

It’s not just marriage - the overwhelming majority of non-Catholics do not believe that sex is primarily for reproduction either, and are therefore baffled by RC teaching on ABC.

…thus proving the majority in error. Revelation is objective; it contains objective propositions which are accepted not on intrinsic evidence, but on authority and extrinsic evidence. How many believe it has nothing to do with its veracity.

They do, however, generally accept that stable and lasting marriage are a good thing, that divorce is damaging (especially for children) and that adultery is wrong (although if they are tempted to adultery themselves they may come up with all sorts of justifications why it’s understandable in their particular case).

Good, but not enough. The good of the whole society which the generation and education of children pertain to is greater than the good of the inidividual persons which the relationship pertains to.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[thecolorsblend]

What about Native Americans? Are they a part of American culture? Many of them have religious beliefs and cultural practices that are not Christian.

I said “this country”. The United States of America. By definition they were not involved to any significant degree with the founding of this country. America’s dominant religious influence has always been Christianity… a fact that worked quite well until the 20th century, when a minority of people decided they knew better than our forebears on how America “ought to be”.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I consider (not surprisingly) that morality is an entirely secular matter.

If that were so, why do moral disagreements exist?

 

[Rau]

If that were so, why do moral disagreements exist?

For at least 2 reasons:

1. There can be different systems of morality, neither of which invoke God;
2. Some systems involve impossibly complex judgements to be made about the consequences of acts to gauge “goodness”.

There is actually some simplicity injected into moral considerations when a set of external rules are provided (by the deity). They can eliminate the need to perform what maybe impossibly complex assessments of impacts on all parties arising from alternative acts.

 

[clem456]

I consider (not surprisingly) that morality is an entirely secular matter.

What does that mean?
Morality is the evaluation of acts as
good or
evil
So morality is a process of evaluation based on some values, not merely a set of arbitrary prohibitions or whimsical beliefs.

What do you mean by secular?

 

[Lucretius]

What does that mean?
Morality is the evaluation of acts as
good or
evil
So morality is a process of evaluation based on some values, not merely a set of arbitrary prohibitions or whimsical beliefs.

What do you mean by secular?

Since he understand religion as a system of beliefs concerning deity, to him, morality doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with God.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Thorolfr]

I said “this country”. The United States of America. By definition they [Native Americans] were not involved to any significant degree with the founding of this country. America’s dominant religious influence has always been Christianity… a fact that worked quite well until the 20th century, when a minority of people decided they knew better than our forebears on how America “ought to be”.

It didn’t work all that well for the Native Americans, did it?

 

[Cimachol]

Well I’m all for a society that includes your God. And any other deity you’d care to mention. I’m not anti religion. I think it does a lot of good for a lot of people.

But my arguments won’t include any reference to your God or anyone else’s. If yours don’t, then we’re on the same page, which is a good thing. I mean, if the ONLY reason you are going to argue against, in this case, gay marriage turns out to be ‘because God says so’, then it won’t be a very fruitful discussion.

One assumes that you’d have reasons other than that. Because I can’t just accept that line of reasoning or we’d both have to accept that line from people with other beliefs.

Let me know what yours are when you get the chance.

The basic problem, as I see it, is that I believe that marriage is something sacred, and I don’t know if atheism allows for any concept of sacredness, beyond things being “really, really special” to some people. I believe that marriage between men and women does happen to be tremendously good for society, in that it not only produces new children so that society can continue to flourish, but it also ideally provides a loving environment in which parents have a vested interest in the people their children are become, beyond the basic physical needs of the children. The children, in turn, are able to witness how moral adults behave on a day to day basis, even amid the many mistakes that both parents and children always end up making.

From a strictly worldly view, one might suppose that a same-sex couple could also provide a loving environment for children, and should therefore be treated equally. This, however, ignores the sacred nature of marriage. Once marriage ceases to be something inherently sacred and merely a contract between two people to share financial resources and forsake other romantic partners, it tends to fall apart when times get tough. Having a duty to a spouse is one thing; having a sworn duty to God to take care of a spouse through good times and bad is another. We are already seeing marriages fall apart because so many people fail to recognize them as sacred. Gay marriage is one more strike against it.

But again, I don’t even know how an atheist holds the idea of objective morality (things being inherently right or wrong, as opposed to merely desirable or undesirable to many people), much less the concept of sacred. I believe it will ultimately be devastating to society if we ignore concepts such as morality and sacredness in our laws. (For example, we have also seen people forget the sacredness of human life, resulting in millions of abortions and, in some places, a willingness to end the lives of the suffering.) If concepts such as morality and sacredness are unacceptable to an atheist, than there will be laws that we disagree on. Someone isn’t going to get there way.

 

[clem456]

Since he understand religion as a system of beliefs concerning deity, to him, morality doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with God.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Since morality is the evaluation of the evil/good of acts, they must be evaluated in reference to something…some principles, philosophies, values, that can be held to be consistently true and valid. Otherwise “morality” has no meaning, because you have no referential values.
Evaluation…value

That’s why I am asking what is meant by morality being a “secular” matter. What are the secular values. Who determines them? How durable and consistent are those values?

 

[Thorolfr]

Since morality is the evaluation of the evil/good of acts, they must be evaluated in reference to something…some principles, philosophies, values, that can be held to be consistently true and valid. Otherwise “morality” has no meaning, because you have no referential values.
Evaluation…value

That’s why I am asking what is meant by morality being a “secular” matter. What are the secular values. Who determines them? How durable and consistent are those values?

Even for people who think that religion should be the yardstick, the “referential values”, for morality, whose religion are we going to use? And if you think it should be Christianity, should we use conservative Catholicism or liberal Episcopalianism?

 

[clem456]

Even for people who think that religion should be the yardstick, the “referential values”, for morality, whose religion are we going to use? And if you think it should be Christianity, should we use conservative Catholicism or liberal Episcopalianism?

Good questions. Discussion can be had on the underlying philosophy which undergirds these values.
For instance Christianity believes that we do not create ourselves, that something “other” than us wills us into existence. We can debate whether that “other” exists, but that belief system tells us things like:
every man is made in the image of God,
and is beloved by God.
That God delights in our existence.
This places our human dignity safely outside the realm of whim, whether it be personal or popular whim.

And so, since we believe God to be the transcendent and unchanging Good, we can refer to that God-given value and we can talk about how to protect the dignity of every person on that basis, and how dignity is inviolable.

Same with God bringing us into existence. “It is good that we are alive”.
That is a value to be affirmed and upheld. It addresses many questions:
How did we come to be?
How valuable is our life?
How should we live?
Where are we going?

So our Christian philosophies and beliefs provide a reference point for values that we can apply to all persons.

My question was how morality is a “secular matter”? What does that mean in this context?

 

[Lucretius]

Since morality is the evaluation of the evil/good of acts, they must be evaluated in reference to something…some principles, philosophies, values, that can be held to be consistently true and valid. Otherwise “morality” has no meaning, because you have no referential values.
Evaluation…value

That’s why I am asking what is meant by morality being a “secular” matter. What are the secular values. Who determines them? How durable and consistent are those values?

I don’t know what basis he would propose, but he could appeal to the natural law tradition as a secular morality (as far as I’m concerned, the only basis for morality period is the natural law).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[jjr9]

However, as Christians, we have a duty to obey God. And he has made it very clear that marriage is between ONE MAN and ONE woman. To pretend otherwise is both foolish and impious. Thus, it pains me whenever an ordained clergy figure, regardless of which church they belong to, brushes aside their commitment to obey the words of the bible. Likewise, its important to understand that the First Amendment works both ways, and any attempt to FORCE churches to accept gay "marriage should be vigorously opposed. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything I say.

I certainly agree with this; as a Catholic it pains me to see the Magisterium has made the error of believing in what I believe to be
a mythical “homosexual person” with no rational reason or harmony with the Sacred Deposit of faith. Only a political correctness
that falls in line with the LGBT orthodoxy. This error has most certainly contributed to secular same sex marriage.

God bless

 

[ialsop]

An argument needs a premise, which must include logical statements backed up by evidence, which then leads to a conclusion. So:

If we allow A, then the result will be B as seen by the evidence X, Y and Z which we would consider to be harmful. Therefore we should not allow A.

A religious argument isn’t actually an argument. It simply says that we shouldn’t allow A because…my deity/scripture/authority says so.

You can turn it into an argument if you say something along the lines of:

My God/scripture/authority says that if we allow A, then the result will be B as seen by the evidence X, Y and Z which we would consider to be harmful. Therefore we should not allow A.

I’ve no problem with you starting your premise with god/scripture/authority, but you can’t use it again as evidence or again simply as a conclusion.

Okay, I see what you are saying.

I agree, it is annoying when people, even Christians, cannot give an argument. For example, the Bible is infallible because the Bible says so.

 

[Bradski]

Once marriage ceases to be something inherently sacred and merely a contract between two people to share financial resources and forsake other romantic partners, it tends to fall apart when times get tough. Having a duty to a spouse is one thing; having a sworn duty to God to take care of a spouse through good times and bad is another.

If the stats backed up your assertion then I would have to concede your point. But they don’t so I can’t.

Wright combed through the General Social Survey, a vast demographic study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and found that Christians, like adherents of other religions, have a divorce rate of about 42%. usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-14-divorce-christians_N.htm

That’s why I am asking what is meant by morality being a “secular” matter. What are the secular values. Who determines them? How durable and consistent are those values?

Difficult to answer, I’ll admit. At least as to their duration and consistency. But as to who determines them, that’s easy. It’s us.

You might say that scripture or the Church or God Himself determines what we should do in regard to moral matters. But imagine a moral problem that’s not covered by scripture or the catechism. A problem for which there is no divine guidance. How would you decide which is the correct course of action?

 

[Rau]

…But as to who determines them [morals] that’s easy. It’s us.

You might say that scripture or the Church or God Himself determines what we should do in regard to moral matters. But imagine a moral problem that’s not covered by scripture or the catechism. A problem for which there is no divine guidance. How would you decide which is the correct course of action?

“Morality” is not generally thought of as formulated by a community. It is typically more “personal” or of religious origin guiding decisions of what is right and wrong. Ethics tend to be formulated in communities as good “applied principles” eg. Politicians should not accept money from the organisation over which they have a regulatory responsibility. Of course there can be overlap.

As to your last point, do you have an example in mind?