Non-Religious Apologetics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Goddra2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Goddra2

Guest
My Friend and I, both Catholic, are having a debate over “gay marriage”. Is there a nonreligious point of emphasis I can use? I gave her a copy of the Catholic Answers Special Report,“Gay Marriage”, and she’s already claiming most of the sources as biased and therefore invalid.
 
I like the idea of emphasising reason to win your argument, I think it works too! Catholicism makes so much sense, you don’t need to scream Scripture, just use it as even more emphasis ultimately! What exactly do you want to emphasise?
 
The best non-religious reason that the state should not grant gay marriage, is because marriage itself has religious connotations, violating the seperation of church and state.

The state should only issue civil unions to anyone who wants it, and recognize it as such. If someone wants to get “married”, it should only be officially recognized at their church/religious organization of preference.
 
Goddra2 said:
My Friend and I, both Catholic, are having a debate over “gay marriage”. Is there a nonreligious point of emphasis I can use? I gave her a copy of the Catholic Answers Special Report,“Gay Marriage”, and she’s already claiming most of the sources as biased and therefore invalid.
Click to expand...
John Martignoni touches on the non-religious reasons against “gay marriage” in his talk Marriage and the Eucharist, found at this website as a free download.
 
Pixie_Dust said:
John Martignoni touches on the non-religious reasons against “gay marriage” in his talk Marriage and the Eucharist, found at this website as a free download.
Click to expand...
Yes! 👍 The exact link is here:

biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/marriage_and_the_eucharist.mp3

(they’ll ask you to enter your name and email address. Just enter it and you’ll be taken to the download right away)

His main argument is the from the theory of evolution. Most people who don’t want a religious answer will have their ears open if you even mention the word “evolution”:D! The theory of evolution concerns itself with the “survival of the species”. **How can gay unions ensure the survival of the species??? ** That contradicts the theory of evolution and therefore gay-marriages and unions (sex) are contrary to natural law. Therefore, they cannot be permitted.

In my opinion, homosexuality is a **psychological disorder **which needs to be treated and must not be “justified”.
 
Actually, I was going over an apologetics book I have. There’s an argument involving tolerance, which I’ve fit to this argument.
  1. All homosexuals should be tolerated.
  2. Tolerance presupposes good and evil
    2a. People do not tolerate “good”.
    2b. People tolerate evil so that greater evil might not occur.
  3. Something about homosexuality is evil, and should be tolerated.
Thanks for the links!🙂
 
Simply.
Sex is good within wedlock only.
No Thomas is needed to see it.
There is in its lust a weakening side as the well-known saw has it.
The good of wedlock offsets it fully and more.
Without wedlock all sex is sadness.
 
Hit her with this argument.

First, ask her if she believes in the valuing and protection of children.

If she says yes, ask her to bear with you, then asks if she thinks Hitler is a credible source.

If she says no, then tell that he believed in the valuing and protecting of children. And therefore that renders the belief of valuing and protecting children invalid.

But most people will do their best to squirm out of this to justify their belief. If people held themselves to the same standard then they should stop valuing and protecting children because a non credible source believed the same thing, therefore rendering it invalid.

But I firmly believe nobody ever holds themselves to the same standards that they expect everybody else to be held by, and will always do what they can to excuse themselves from those standards, whatever they may be.
 
Goddra2 said:
Actually, I was going over an apologetics book I have. There’s an argument involving tolerance, which I’ve fit to this argument.
  1. All homosexuals should be tolerated.
  2. Tolerance presupposes good and evil
    2a. People do not tolerate “good”.
    2b. People tolerate evil so that greater evil might not occur.
  3. Something about homosexuality is evil, and should be tolerated.
Thanks for the links!🙂
Click to expand...
Toleration is also advocated for Christians and different ethnicities.

Spot the contradiction in your statement and win e-cookies.😃
 
My main secular argument against homosexual marriage is that it opens the door to legalizing other things, for instance polygamy, and marrying animals.

😃 Hey, let’s legalize both! Then I could marry my dogs and claim them as a tax deduction! :rotfl:

Ruthie
 
State is a good thing.
State provides for the good of its folk. It has to make people happy.
Sex without marriage can not give happiness which follows from chemistry in the brain.
Therefore the State does not have to allow same sex marriages on the basis that they are not matrimonial.
Now, we know if the State does not have to it doesn’t. This is a truth about the State. It is a rigid evil machine and it’s good because we are accustomed to it as it is. Now, if the State be soft and listen to the needs of all small groups it’s gonna screw itself up.
 
While I admire a lot of the effort that’s gone into the “reason alone” ideas, nobody seems to have addressed the blatant ‘wrong’ in attempting to separate ‘religion’ out of the argument. . .the assumption apparently being that a ‘religious’ argument is:

A. Not ‘reasonable’, therefore useless and/or
B. As ‘religious’, therefore can **only **affect at most any ‘religious’ people --not the ‘nonreligious’, or only those ‘religious’ who ‘accept’ the argument–not necessarily ‘all religious’.

I say that those arguments themselves are invalid.

First, religion is not per se ‘unreasonable’. Faith, of course, **uses **
reason but in the end, since God is ‘outside’ reason (reason being a created thing, and God a ‘creator’), one goes ‘beyond’ reason. It would be like a ship setting sail for a far distant country back in the day when there was no assurance that the country was ‘there’ as there was no ‘proof’ --nobody had seen the country, it was only ‘theorized’ to exist based on reasonable deductions. To the people seeing the ship ‘disappear’ over the horizon, they accepted the ‘reason’ that the ship set sail and trusted to FAITH that the reason would be correct and the country found. Just so do we have faith in our God and our ultimate life after death. . .reason tells us, but we have not ‘seen’ with our own eyes until we make the journey in death, and we make that journey with faith.

Second, religion cannot be ‘separated’ from humanity, or boxed from it. Issues cannot be considered simply and solely ‘religious’ issues; nor can they be considered issues with which ‘religion’ has nothing to do. Religion. . .our religion. . .informs every facet of our lives. Religion is WHY we do as we do. It isn’t something that we take out for a walk to church on a Sunday morning every week and close up from ‘real life’ the rest of the time.

Finally, the truth that underlies religion exists apart from whether a given individual ‘accepts’ religion, or indeed truth. To argue that because somebody is ‘not religious’ or not a particular ‘religion’ means that they are not held accountable, or held to the same ‘standard’, is specious reasoning. That which is Truth remains Truth whether a person ‘accepts’ it as so, or not.
 
Goddra2 said:
Actually, I was going over an apologetics book I have. There’s an argument involving tolerance, which I’ve fit to this argument.
  1. All homosexuals should be tolerated.
  2. Tolerance presupposes good and evil
    2a. People do not tolerate “good”.
    2b. People tolerate evil so that greater evil might not occur.
  3. Something about homosexuality is evil, and should be tolerated.
Thanks for the links!🙂
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t the distinction between the homosexual act and the same sex attraction be recognized? In other words, the attraction is not sinful in itself and if a person choses to identify himself as a homosexual based on that, well he should be tolerated. But the evil that cannot be tolerated is the sodomy that is the expression of the attraction.
 
It’s a weak argument anyway, because liberals don’t push for “tolerance” of homosexuality, but “acceptance”.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
While I admire a lot of the effort that’s gone into the “reason alone” ideas, nobody seems to have addressed the blatant ‘wrong’ in attempting to separate ‘religion’ out of the argument. . .
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you, and in this case I think the Church’s teaching on sexual morality is consistent, clear and logical. The command to be chaste applies to all people, and while it precludes the homosexual act it does not stigmatize the self professed homosexual. I believe that seeing the practice of homosexuality as an issue of chastity, in the same way adultery or self abuse are issues of chastity provides a clear understanding where it is in error. And who else besides the Church teaches the doctrine of chastity in its fullness?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
While I admire a lot of the effort that’s gone into the “reason alone” ideas, nobody seems to have addressed the blatant ‘wrong’ in attempting to separate ‘religion’ out of the argument. . .the assumption apparently being that a ‘religious’ argument is:

A. Not ‘reasonable’, therefore useless and/or
B. As ‘religious’, therefore can **only **affect at most any ‘religious’ people --not the ‘nonreligious’, or only those ‘religious’ who ‘accept’ the argument–not necessarily ‘all religious’.

I say that those arguments themselves are invalid.

First, religion is not per se ‘unreasonable’. Faith, of course, **uses **
reason but in the end, since God is ‘outside’ reason (reason being a created thing, and God a ‘creator’), one goes ‘beyond’ reason. It would be like a ship setting sail for a far distant country back in the day when there was no assurance that the country was ‘there’ as there was no ‘proof’ --nobody had seen the country, it was only ‘theorized’ to exist based on reasonable deductions. To the people seeing the ship ‘disappear’ over the horizon, they accepted the ‘reason’ that the ship set sail and trusted to FAITH that the reason would be correct and the country found. Just so do we have faith in our God and our ultimate life after death. . .reason tells us, but we have not ‘seen’ with our own eyes until we make the journey in death, and we make that journey with faith.

Second, religion cannot be ‘separated’ from humanity, or boxed from it. Issues cannot be considered simply and solely ‘religious’ issues; nor can they be considered issues with which ‘religion’ has nothing to do. Religion. . .our religion. . .informs every facet of our lives. Religion is WHY we do as we do. It isn’t something that we take out for a walk to church on a Sunday morning every week and close up from ‘real life’ the rest of the time.

Finally, the truth that underlies religion exists apart from whether a given individual ‘accepts’ religion, or indeed truth. To argue that because somebody is ‘not religious’ or not a particular ‘religion’ means that they are not held accountable, or held to the same ‘standard’, is specious reasoning. That which is Truth remains Truth whether a person ‘accepts’ it as so, or not.
Click to expand...
Using a philosophical (rather than theological) argument is not a concession to the idea that religion is irrational. It’s Socratic. Sexual morality belongs to the order of things knowable by the natural light of reason. Thus even when discussing with someone without the grace of faith, the truth about the body can unfold from a patient asking of questions and an ordered procession of thought.

Such things, today, are rare.

From another angle, according to St. Augustine, the gentle, didactic style of speaking is favorable to hostile or difficult audiences. It might in some cases be proper to withold remarks about which you know your dialogue partner is sensitive–which in many cases today are religious remarks.

It is not about compartmentalizing our faith. It is the Holy Spirit at work when we are in the service of truth, even if we never quote the Scriptures once. It is about always acting with a mind toward the effects of your actions. Prudence is king of the cardinal virtues.

Finally, you are correct in pointing out that the Truth does not change to accomodate people who are in error. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 🙂 Remember, though, that God does not test people beyond their strength (1 Cor 10:13). People who labor under the burden of error can be said to have a diminished strength. So even while we always testify to truth, out of love, we do not need to be distressed that those we fail to persuade will not be treated mercifully. We all need mercy for one thing or another.
 
I… wow. Thank you all SO much. This has been wonderful of all of you.

I have just one teeny little thing left to ask. When I earlier spoke to my friend about Proposition 8 (Californian bill for limiting marriage to one man and one woman), she turned on me and started declaring, “Church and State! Church and State!!”

…Yeah. I don’t think she’s much of a Catholic, either. Help?
 
Goddra2 said:
I… wow. Thank you all SO much. This has been wonderful of all of you.

I have just one teeny little thing left to ask. When I earlier spoke to my friend about Proposition 8 (Californian bill for limiting marriage to one man and one woman), she turned on me and started declaring, “Church and State! Church and State!!”

…Yeah. I don’t think she’s much of a Catholic, either. Help?
Click to expand...
If she’s talking about “separation of Church and State” it’s not in the Constitution, as much as some people wish it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top