Non-religious Argument Against Gay Marriage?

[ERose]

I’ll answer that, because you won’t get a straight answer out of any of the deputies who have been sent to the various religious forums to conduct their indoctrination campaign. Notice that they don’t go to the popular media, who is pretty much on their side already.

The “why” is about the struggle for language. When you can seize language you can control both law (or regulation) and public perception. That’s why they’re here, all of them. The best way to deal with all of them is not to engage in conversation, because as you have seen, they are not serious about classic argumentation within the rules of logic and beginning with accepted premises. They’re inventing new biological and social premises, then arguing from circular positions. You won’t get them to agree on objective anything: I don’t mean 'objective truth" as understood in Catholic philosophy. I just mean objective biology and objective gender. Ain’t going to happen. They live in an enclosed world (a subset of the secular world) with uniquely fluid frameworks that evolve as expedient. Their objective is to wear down anyone with non-fluid frameworks. Therefore their foremost target are religions which hold to some permanence of ideas and terms.

Some of my favorite quotes from George Orwell apply here:

Note also that the family unit, in the novel 1984, is under attack, just as it is today. The principal method of attacking the tradiitonal family unit is to manipulate language; the secondary method is to make prominent artificial insemination (“artsem”) as the preferred method of reproduction, with technology overwhelming elemental biological relationships and the dynamism of nature.

Their game is very transparent to me, and to some others in both academia and public life who understand this.

I recognize the same thing and I know that no matter how much proof is thrown out there they are not going to accept it because it is not their agenda. I do not think what I write is a waste of time and I know you are not implying that. I write what I write for those on the fence. I hope they read up on it themselves. There is alot of people out there who are falling for the proproganda, because of the positive only reflection of gay couples on television and the movies. And as such they only see the one side of the story and not both.

 

[kenofken]

I’ll answer that, because you won’t get a straight answer out of any of the deputies who have been sent to the various religious forums to conduct their indoctrination campaign. Notice that they don’t go to the popular media, who is pretty much on their side already.

The “why” is about the struggle for language. When you can seize language you can control both law (or regulation) and public perception. That’s why they’re here, all of them. The best way to deal with all of them is not to engage in conversation, because as you have seen, they are not serious about classic argumentation within the rules of logic and beginning with accepted premises. They’re inventing new biological and social premises, then arguing from circular positions. You won’t get them to agree on objective anything: I don’t mean 'objective truth" as understood in Catholic philosophy. I just mean objective biology and objective gender. Ain’t going to happen. They live in an enclosed world (a subset of the secular world) with uniquely fluid frameworks that evolve as expedient. Their objective is to wear down anyone with non-fluid frameworks. Therefore their foremost target are religions which hold to some permanence of ideas and terms.

Some of my favorite quotes from George Orwell apply here:

Note also that the family unit, in the novel 1984, is under attack, just as it is today. The principal method of attacking the tradiitonal family unit is to manipulate language; the secondary method is to make prominent artificial insemination (“artsem”) as the preferred method of reproduction, with technology overwhelming elemental biological relationships and the dynamism of nature.

Their game is very transparent to me, and to some others in both academia and public life who understand this.

You certainly have a very conspiratorial view of things. If I’m here as somebody’s “deputy” on an indoctrination campaign, I’d like to get my paycheck from the liberal illuminati or whoever is supposed to be emplying me. Sadly, it’s a labor of love. I don’t expect to convert anyone to anything. My job is to make you understand how things look on my side of the looking glass and to understand why many of us (an apparent majority), are not going along with many of your social or legislative programs. If you had any faith in your own ideas and your ability to articulate them, you wouldn’t be scared of us at all, I would think. I’m not sure how refusing to engage us is going to help. Do you suppose we’re going away? Do you have the option of moving off-world or to a secret undersea city to avoid our company or debates in civil society?

There are going to be many instances where we will not agree on the premise in a debate, but I think we’ve tried as much as possible to keep the debate on reasonable terms of argumentation and not personal attacks. It’s not that we don’t acknowledge any objective reality, but I also do not accept Rome’s version of objective truth on everything nor any mythical universal “natural law” which is based on over-simplified notions of science from the early 1800s. By example, I don’t suppose that “species” means nothing and that there is no distinction between us and squirrels,but I also don’t accept the creationist notion of each “kind” of creature being hand-made and set into final and unchanging form. My refusal to accept the creationist’s truth hardly makes me a relatavist.

I’m also not sure why you think any of us have an interest in attacking family structure. All of us, so far as I know, come from families and almost all of us have one in some form. All were “traditional” in the best way we knew how at the time. Not everyone grew up like the Cleavers, and any serious examination of the “good old days” would reveal that even the folks who looked like the Cleavers had their own issues too.

I’m especially bemused by the notion that “we” (whoever that is), or anyone, would want to make artificial insemination the preferred form of reproduction. It cost many tens of thousands of dollars for procedures which have no promise of success and substantial health risks. We do believe in using technology to overwhelm nature’s dynamics at times, and we have as a race since the day we made a tool or started a fire. If we hadn’t, women would still be having 8 or 10 children and losing most of them in infancy and most of us would be dead (or feel like it), by our early 40s.

 

[colmcille1]

I say that because I know my gods in a way that is intensely personal. In my rituals and mediations, I have a direct line, so to speak, and I do not need or desire the mediation or translation of clergy, bishops, theologions, etc. I don’t need anyone elses book of revelation when I have access to them myself every minute of every day. I am part of an organized faith to the extent that I work cooperatively in a group with other like-minded people, but we’re not congregational. There is no laity, and we don’t try to define our own personal experience of deity as the only correct authoritative one.

Well now, kenofken, here’s the thing: although you are unaware of it, what you have posted here is, to all intents and purposes, a definition of moral relativism.
(As you can see from my post to** Elizabeth**, I like to acknowledge posts which stand out from the crowd, so to speak. In her case, her post stood out for it’s incisive brilliance. In yours, alas, it is distinguished by it’s despairing absence of hope.)
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[kenofken]

Well now, kenofken, here’s the thing: although you are unaware of it, what you have posted here is, to all intents and purposes, a definition of moral relativism.
(As you can see from my post to** Elizabeth**, I like to acknowledge posts which stand out from the crowd, so to speak. In her case, her post stood out for it’s incisive brilliance. In yours, alas, it is distinguished by it’s despairing absence of hope.)
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Don’t let me drive you to despair. It’s not worth it! You wield a mighty tough yardstick for a standard of moral relativism. By your standard, anyone who exercises their own conscience in a way that deviates ten-thousandths of an inch from Vatican pronouncements is a moral relativist. I tend to think of relativism as truly having no moral bottom line ie most politicians, corporations, nihilists and satanists (and a good many Christians who reason that since they are on a righteous path, anything they decide to do must also be righteous). I assure you I do have a code of ethics and morals and my spiritual path is not one which allows one to rationalize anything we wish to do. My conscience is informed by a deepening understanding and appreciation of life and by direct communion with my gods. If that makes me a relativist, may I live and die a guilty man.

BTW, if deviating from unquestioning obedience to another human’s interpretation of God’s will is relativism, than surely the apostles also stand guilty. They dared to discern truth which contravened God’s perfectly revelealed and unchanging law.

 

[colmcille1]

Don’t let me drive you to despair. It’s not worth it! You wield a mighty tough yardstick for a standard of moral relativism. By your standard, anyone who exercises their own conscience in a way that deviates ten-thousandths of an inch from Vatican pronouncements is a moral relativist. I tend to think of relativism as truly having no moral bottom line ie most politicians, corporations, nihilists and satanists (and a good many Christians who reason that since they are on a righteous path, anything they decide to do must also be righteous). I assure you I do have a code of ethics and morals and my spiritual path is not one which allows one to rationalize anything we wish to do. My conscience is informed by a deepening understanding and appreciation of life and by direct communion with my gods. If that makes me a relativist, may I live and die a guilty man.

BTW, if deviating from unquestioning obedience to another human’s interpretation of God’s will is relativism, than surely the apostles also stand guilty. They dared to discern truth which contravened God’s perfectly revelealed and unchanging law.

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply.
I am not trying to be a smart-alec here but what you believe to be moral relativism is, alas, a symptom of that very moral relativism which is endemic in todays world.
We can readily dismiss “…politicians, corporations, nihilists (etc)” The vast majority of Catholics challenge themselves daily to be better people according to Christ’s teaching.
The vast majority know that they fail miserably. Yet it does not deter them from seeking the great joy that is Catholicism. The price for said joy is Faithful obedience.
Like other non-believing posters on other threads you seem to labour under the misunderstanding that what you disagree with is rigid intolerance; and that all believers represent, to one degree or another, said intolerance. This is plain nonsense.
If you do not fully understand what being Catholic means, how can you be so ardently against it?
Indeed, would you not feel compelled to discover the inner workings of Faith since, as you say yourself, you have a “code of ethics…and…spiritual path”?
I think that you would be truly rewarded for your discovery.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[kenofken]

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply.
I am not trying to be a smart-alec here but what you believe to be moral relativism is, alas, a symptom of that very moral relativism which is endemic in todays world.
We can readily dismiss “…politicians, corporations, nihilists (etc)” The vast majority of Catholics challenge themselves daily to be better people according to Christ’s teaching.
The vast majority know that they fail miserably. Yet it does not deter them from seeking the great joy that is Catholicism. The price for said joy is Faithful obedience.
Like other non-believing posters on other threads you seem to labour under the misunderstanding that what you disagree with is rigid intolerance; and that all believers represent, to one degree or another, said intolerance. This is plain nonsense.
If you do not fully understand what being Catholic means, how can you be so ardently against it?
Indeed, would you not feel compelled to discover the inner workings of Faith since, as you say yourself, you have a “code of ethics…and…spiritual path”?
I think that you would be truly rewarded for your discovery.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

You presume that I have dismissed Catholicism based on a shallow pop-culture understanding of what it represents. I was in fact raised in it, attended 12 years of Catholic schools, earned scouting’s Ad Altare Dei award and was considered by some a potential candidate for the seminary at various times in my younger life.

Do I think the faith per se is intolerant? No, but I do believe it has taken a much more reactionary turn since I left, which happened in the late 1980s. I see almost none of Christ’s message and life reflected in the actions and words of church leaders these days, and the faith seems more and more to be weilded as a weapon for various political and cultural agendas. Down on the ground level of the average Catholic, it’s often a much different story. Some of my oldest and best friends are devout Catholics and I don’t give them grief over their faith.

On the other hand, when people suggest that anyone outside of their own understanding of Catholicism is essentially amoral and without basis for moral reasoning, I have to tell you, it hits my ear as intolerance. More than a few on this forum flat-out call me a devil worshipper. Catholics should be able to appreciate the position I’m in, given that Evangelicals view you all in exaclty the same way.

Likewise with “culture war” issues, particularly gay marriage, Catholics may indeed have a doctrinal basis for opposing it, but a very significant minority of them have allowed their quest to be fired by hatred. Vicious hatred of the kind I have seen in skinhead gangs. I don’t think I’m projecting anything unfair on those folks because I only attribute hatred when they make it clear through thinly-veiled (or completely unveiled) words of hatred. To the extent you allow these folks to continue to be your sign-bearers and to set your agenda, I’m afraid Catholicism in general will increasingly be perceived as a force of intolerance and a barrier to civil society.

 

[ERose]

Do I think the faith per se is intolerant? No, but I do believe it has taken a much more reactionary turn since I left, which happened in the late 1980s. I see almost none of Christ’s message and life reflected in the actions and words of church leaders these days, and the faith seems more and more to be weilded as a weapon for various political and cultural agendas. Down on the ground level of the average Catholic, it’s often a much different story. Some of my oldest and best friends are devout Catholics and I don’t give them grief over their faith.

I think personally you have become close minded to the Church’s tolerance. If the church was so anti-gay(the person not the life style) then why the AIDs ministries throughout the world. Why would the church being intolerant turn its compassion on those that have AIDs. I looked at some of the requirements of these ministries to get support and I haven’t seen “must be straight” in those requirements. Google it yourself. Catholic charities put alot of money in effort to support and minister to AIDs victims. It is one of the largest AIDs support in San Francisco and yet it is our churches getting vandalized and it is our worship that they are desecrating. You don’t see Catholics picketing in front of Gay rights groups’ building. You don’t see Catholics spitting on their leaders, nor do you see Catholics attacking personally members of the gay-rights groups. Yet you see it from their side. And it is accepted by the media and rarely reported.

On the other hand, when people suggest that anyone outside of their own understanding of Catholicism is essentially amoral and without basis for moral reasoning, I have to tell you, it hits my ear as intolerance. More than a few on this forum flat-out call me a devil worshipper. Catholics should be able to appreciate the position I’m in, given that Evangelicals view you all in exaclty the same way.

Then you are not keeping up with the debate are you. The Catholic church and others, even myself on this thread, have posted very good reasons why this shouldn’t be done. It has nothing to do with intolerance. It has to do about what is right. The church’s stance has been that you cannot take the foundation of society and experiment with it and not expect bad consequences. That is what is going to happen. The proof? Look at the countries that have legalized civil unions or marriage among gays and see for yourself. I truly mean look for the unbias studies out there, which are very hard to find mind you because it seems that everyone has an agenda. But I did find some, see big posts above.

Likewise with “culture war” issues, particularly gay marriage, Catholics may indeed have a doctrinal basis for opposing it, but a very significant minority of them have allowed their quest to be fired by hatred. Vicious hatred of the kind I have seen in skinhead gangs.

I have seen more hatred and intolerance from the left side than the right side. Again it isn’t Catholics vandalizing churches, sending death threats, and desecrating their worship. Most of it is coming from the left. Google Catholic attacks on Gays and you want find any, except dialogue. Yet google Gays attacks on Catholics and see what pops up.

I don’t think I’m projecting anything unfair on those folks because I only attribute hatred when they make it clear through thinly-veiled (or completely unveiled) words of hatred. To the extent you allow these folks to continue to be your sign-bearers and to set your agenda, I’m afraid Catholicism in general will increasingly be perceived as a force of intolerance and a barrier to civil society.

Again more words of hate from the left in this one. There really is no comparison. But if you have something showing the pure hatred of the Catholic church against gays please share it with us. Show me yours and I will show you mine.

 

[ERose]

One question do you consider my posts 145-147 as hateful. Just curious.

Also I noticed that there hasn’t been in valid arguments proposed to refute these posts. In fact only one has attempted to do so and his/her response was all emotion and no substance. Does that mean the arguing over this subject is over and we are down to non thread subjects now? If it is then I will move on.

 

[Dubliner]

Why a non religious argument? Religion affects the whole fabric of our lives. A discussion without the religious point of view is nonsense.

 

[colmcille1]

You presume that I have dismissed Catholicism based on a shallow pop-culture understanding of what it represents. I was in fact raised in it, attended 12 years of Catholic schools, earned scouting’s Ad Altare Dei award and was considered by some a potential candidate for the seminary at various times in my younger life.

Do I think the faith per se is intolerant? No, but I do believe it has taken a much more reactionary turn since I left, which happened in the late 1980s. I see almost none of Christ’s message and life reflected in the actions and words of church leaders these days, and the faith seems more and more to be weilded as a weapon for various political and cultural agendas. Down on the ground level of the average Catholic, it’s often a much different story. Some of my oldest and best friends are devout Catholics and I don’t give them grief over their faith.

On the other hand, when people suggest that anyone outside of their own understanding of Catholicism is essentially amoral and without basis for moral reasoning, I have to tell you, it hits my ear as intolerance. More than a few on this forum flat-out call me a devil worshipper. Catholics should be able to appreciate the position I’m in, given that Evangelicals view you all in exaclty the same way.

Likewise with “culture war” issues, particularly gay marriage, Catholics may indeed have a doctrinal basis for opposing it, but a very significant minority of them have allowed their quest to be fired by hatred. Vicious hatred of the kind I have seen in skinhead gangs. I don’t think I’m projecting anything unfair on those folks because I only attribute hatred when they make it clear through thinly-veiled (or completely unveiled) words of hatred. To the extent you allow these folks to continue to be your sign-bearers and to set your agenda, I’m afraid Catholicism in general will increasingly be perceived as a force of intolerance and a barrier to civil society.

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply.
I was about to post quite a long reply and then I saw that ERose had done exactly that; and a far better response than I could ever muster. But I will not “piggyback” on her reply completely.
Funnily enough, I actually agree with you viz weak chuch leaders. Here in Ireland, I am doing my tiny bit to remedy this.
I have had, like anyone, huge ups and downs in my life to date. I find Catholicism to be a great challenge. I want to change the way Catholicism is treated in this country and, as alluded to earlier, I want to change the inactive Church leaders methods.
So here are my questions to you: why don’t you try to change said weak leadership in your country?
Would you consider reverting to Catholicism in order to do this?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[kenofken]

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply.
I was about to post quite a long reply and then I saw that ERose had done exactly that; and a far better response than I could ever muster. But I will not “piggyback” on her reply completely.
Funnily enough, I actually agree with you viz weak chuch leaders. Here in Ireland, I am doing my tiny bit to remedy this.
I have had, like anyone, huge ups and downs in my life to date. I find Catholicism to be a great challenge. I want to change the way Catholicism is treated in this country and, as alluded to earlier, I want to change the inactive Church leaders methods.
So here are my questions to you: why don’t you try to change said weak leadership in your country?
Would you consider reverting to Catholicism in order to do this?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

I do symapthise with those trying to do some good with reform, and I have offerred moral support and in some cases helped such people indirectly in recruiting efforts. That said, I’m not the right man to reform the church from the inside. If I went back, it would be solely with an agenda and not out of any real belief. That’s about the last thing they need right now. I think you would agree Islam needs a serious dose of reform right now, and probably needs lots of people like you, but that’s not a good reason for you to become a Muslim. I am where I am in my journey because of a lifelong process of discernment and some real conversion experiences, not because I got cheesed off with the Vatican or bishops or this or that doctrine. Their conduct has greatly diminished my respect for them as an institution, but it’s not what made me a non-Catholic.

 

[colmcille1]

I do symapthise with those trying to do some good with reform, and I have offerred moral support and in some cases helped such people indirectly in recruiting efforts. That said, I’m not the right man to reform the church from the inside. If I went back, it would be solely with an agenda and not out of any real belief. That’s about the last thing they need right now. I think you would agree Islam needs a serious dose of reform right now, and probably needs lots of people like you, but that’s not a good reason for you to become a Muslim. I am where I am in my journey because of a lifelong process of discernment and some real conversion experiences, not because I got cheesed off with the Vatican or bishops or this or that doctrine. Their conduct has greatly diminished my respect for them as an institution, but it’s not what made me a non-Catholic.

Hi kenofken,
Thank you for your reply. I have enjoyed our discussion and hope that it did not annoy too many posters. If it did, I apologise to them now.
May I wish you well in your life’s quest.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[catholismwhattt]

'As an analogy, we use a drinking age of 21 instead of some intrusive, arbitrary measure of “maturity.” ’
i think is a redundant analogy to use simply because the law itself is not logical. you can legally smoke at i think 18 in parts of the US- i do not know as i am canadian- you can buy guns at 18, you’re an adult at 18, you can go to war at 18, but you can’t have a drink. probably best to pick a better analogy.

 

[sw85]

'As an analogy, we use a drinking age of 21 instead of some intrusive, arbitrary measure of “maturity.” ’
i think is a redundant analogy to use simply because the law itself is not logical. you can legally smoke at i think 18 in parts of the US- i do not know as i am canadian- you can buy guns at 18, you’re an adult at 18, you can go to war at 18, but you can’t have a drink. probably best to pick a better analogy.

The age of 18 is no less of an arbitrary index of maturity, so no.

This thread is a year and a half old, by the way; why did you feel the need to resuscitate it?

 

[Wulfgar]

Why a non religious argument? Religion affects the whole fabric of our lives. A discussion without the religious point of view is nonsense.

Because many people are not religious. Therefore, in certain discussions you need to approach the issue from a non-religious (not anti-religious, of course) stance. Then you will have an agreed premise from which to work from. It’s basic logic. It’s not cowering from your religious views, it’s simply knowing where to start and how to best convince another person.