The Purpose of Marriage

[tonyrey]

Which one? For instance google “american values” and you get choices, google “catholic values” and you get choices, google “baptist values” and you get choices, etc.

Are all systems of values relative? If so relative to what?

Persons? Is so what are persons relative to?

 

[tonyrey]

inocente

A value judgment formed within a specific value system may be parochial, and may be subject to dispute in a wider audience.

It certainly may be subject to dispute anywhere, parochial or otherwise. Does the fact that any or every value is disputed mean there is no absolute value attached to anything?

For example, under what value system would it be right to say that children should be sexually exploited?

So far as I know, only NAMBLA’s (North American Man Boy Love Association) value system would advance that position. But would you agree that NAMBLA is absolutely and objectively wrong to advance such a value as sexual exploitation of a child?

An adequate answer to this question will point towards the objective foundation of a civilised person’s true values.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

**An adequate answer to this question will point towards the objective foundation of a civilised person’s true values. **

And there’s the rub nowadays; finding a civilized person!

 

[Portofino]

Is the value system relative?

What fascinates me is the way in the general difficulty there can be in distinguishing those who are morally relativistic in their thinking, versus those who have a different conception of absolute morality than oneself.

The example I like to give is to compare the Jew and the Christian. For the Jew:

—the consumption of pork, is absolutely immoral
—circumcision is a moral commandment

To the Catholic:

–the consumption of pork is a “personal life choice” (moral relativism?)
–circumcision is optional

You may see the analogy I am getting at here – the analogy with those who say that same sex relationships are a “personal life choice.” They are bound to seem like moral relativists, yet this doesn’t mean that they have no moral absolutes, merely that their conception of morality differs.

To a Catholic, the consumption or non-consumption of pork has nothing to do with morality, which is why they can say it’s a matter of “personal preference” without being moral relativists. But to a liberal Protestant, for example, the gender of one’s partner has nothing to do with morality, thus it cannot be said – based on this alone – that they are moral relativists, either.

Just so, someone who says, “jazz or classical is a personal preference” is not a moral relativist; he simply is maintaining (like the Catholic vis-a-vis pork, or the liberal vis-a-vis the gender of one’s partner) that not everything in life can be ascribed a moral significance. The trick is to try to find agreement as to what choices are inherently moral in character, and what aren’t (you will find many a liberal Protestant, for example, who will agree with the Catholic that monogamy is moral and that promiscuity and unfaithfulness is immoral, yet also maintain that there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about the gender of one’s partner).

 

[tonyrey]

What fascinates me is the way in the general difficulty there can be in distinguishing those who are morally relativistic in their thinking, versus those who have a different conception of absolute morality than oneself.

The example I like to give is to compare the Jew and the Christian. For the Jew:

—the consumption of pork, is absolutely immoral
—circumcision is a moral commandment

To the Catholic:

–the consumption of pork is a “personal life choice” (moral relativism?)
–circumcision is optional

You may see the analogy I am getting at here – the analogy with those who say that same sex relationships are a “personal life choice.” They are bound to seem like moral relativists, yet this doesn’t mean that they have no moral absolutes, merely that their conception of morality differs.

To a Catholic, the consumption or non-consumption of pork has nothing to do with morality, which is why they can say it’s a matter of “personal preference” without being moral relativists. But to a liberal Protestant, for example, the gender of one’s partner has nothing to do with morality, thus it cannot be said – based on this alone – that they are moral relativists, either.

Just so, someone who says, “jazz or classical is a personal preference” is not a moral relativist; he simply is maintaining (like the Catholic vis-a-vis pork, or the liberal vis-a-vis the gender of one’s partner) that not everything in life can be ascribed a moral significance. The trick is to try to find agreement as to what choices are inherently moral in character, and what aren’t (you will find many a liberal Protestant, for example, who will agree with the Catholic that monogamy is moral and that promiscuity and unfaithfulness is immoral, yet also maintain that there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about the gender of one’s partner).

Do you believe the principle that we should do what we believe to be right is relative or absolute?

In other words are there any exceptions to that principle?

 

[Portofino]

Do you believe the principle that we should do what we believe to be right is relative or absolute?

In other words are there any exceptions to that principle?

Someone with a strong sense of morals likely would say yes; someone with comparatively weaker morals, which is probably the majority of us, would make a distinction between the “lesser forms” of immorality that he was willing to compromise on, and the “greater forms” of immorality on which he wasn’t.

For example, there are probably more Christians in the world, even, who are willing to compromise on “do not tell a lie” as opposed to “do not kill or rape.” The principle of “do not tell a lie” has a gray area; if you are a salesman, you may feel pressured to bend the truth or withhold unfavorable information, in order to better make a living (as you see it). One might say to oneself, “in a perfect world, I wouldn’t have to ever compromise my values.” Stealing, on the other hand, might be a non-negotiable.

I think, in my own mind, I belong more to the “majority” than the minority of exceptionally conscientious individuals.

But again, differences in perspective regarding what forms of behavior have a moral significance, and what forms do not, means that each of us is an immoralist in the eyes of someone else. A Christian might believe that one should always do the right thing, yet a Muslim who witnesses him guzzling a beer might seem him as someone with very loose morals. A Jew might might find it hard to describe a Christian who he’s seen savoring a bacon cheeseburger, or sucking the meat of a shrimp out of its shell, as being among the “most moral individuals I know.” A Jew would probably feel the same way about a individual with tatoos all over her body, given that they believe there is a divine injunction against it. Hindus may not see Americans as particularly civilized, given the ubiquity of beef in the American diet.

Just so, someone in a same sex relationship – or a pre-marital sexual relationship – may not appear to have much moral fiber, in the eyes of a Christian. Yet that same non-Christian individual might view the Christian – who eats meat; who supports violence in the name of self-defense, whether politically or personally — as the one lacking in morals, even though that Christian may be able to say, “I strive never to do anything I truly believed was wrong, and I’ve adopted this as the principle of my entire life.” And the non-Christian vegan pacifist fornicator might agree, and be able to say that same thing

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Portofino

Someone with a strong sense of morals likely would say yes; someone with comparatively weaker morals, which is probably the majority of us, would make a distinction between the “lesser forms” of immorality that he was willing to compromise on, and the “greater forms” of immorality on which he wasn’t.

For example, there are probably more Christians in the world, even, who are willing to compromise on “do not tell a lie” as opposed to “do not kill or rape.” The principle of “do not tell a lie” has a gray area; if you are a salesman, you may feel pressured to bend the truth or withhold unfavorable information, in order to better make a living (as you see it). One might say to oneself, “in a perfect world, I wouldn’t have to ever compromise my values.” Stealing, on the other hand, might be a non-negotiable.

I think, in my own mind, I belong more to the “majority” than the minority of exceptionally conscientious individuals.

But again, differences in perspective regarding what forms of behavior have a moral significance, and what forms do not, means that each of us is an immoralist in the eyes of someone else. A Christian might believe that one should always do the right thing, yet a Muslim who witnesses him guzzling a beer might seem him as someone with very loose morals. A Jew might might find it hard to describe a Christian who he’s seen savoring a bacon cheeseburger, or sucking the meat of a shrimp out of its shell, as being among the “most moral individuals I know.” A Jew would probably feel the same way about a individual with tatoos all over her body, given that they believe there is a divine injunction against it. Hindus may not see Americans as particularly civilized, given the ubiquity of beef in the American diet.

Just so, someone in a same sex relationship – or a pre-marital sexual relationship – may not appear to have much moral fiber, in the eyes of a Christian. Yet that same non-Christian individual might view the Christian – who eats meat; who supports violence in the name of self-defense, whether politically or personally — as the one lacking in morals, even though that Christian may be able to say, “I strive never to do anything I truly believed was wrong, and I’ve adopted this as the principle of my entire life.” And the non-Christian vegan pacifist fornicator might agree, and be able to say that same thing ;-)**

O.K. You have exhausted yourself showing us that people disagree. But you haven’t answered tonyrey’s question, have you?

"Do you believe the principle that we should do what we believe to be right is relative or absolute?

In other words are there any exceptions to that principle?"

---

 

[mek42]

Earlier in this thread a concern was raised that adopted children of SSM parents would teach children that homosexuality was acceptable behavior and thus place the children’s souls in peril.

Doesn’t this exact same logic apply to, say, Wiccan parents teaching their children to worship the Goddess?

Why are Catholics not fighting against freedom of religion?

 

[Portofino]

Earlier in this thread a concern was raised that adopted children of SSM parents would teach children that homosexuality was acceptable behavior and thus place the children’s souls in peril.

Doesn’t this exact same logic apply to, say, Wiccan parents teaching their children to worship the Goddess?

Why are Catholics not fighting against freedom of religion?

I had this same exact question to myself regarding whether it would be a moral for a Catholic to place a child with adoptive parents who were Protestant or Jewish, for example. Why in the world would one knowingly deprive that child of access to the sacraments, in particular to a Catholic baptism, and to instruction in the Catholic faith? The phrase “extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” has become broader in its interpretation, in the course of time, but the salvation of non-Catholics – like the salvation of unbaptized infants – is a very uncertain thing, for which there are no clear answers; to knowingly forgo baptism for an infant is a reckless proposition. Why would one give a child to a non-Catholic adoptive couple, any more than one would knowingly deprive a child of the possibility for baptism and the sacraments?

I’m reminded of this, of course, both within the context of Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex parents, as well as the account of the Jewish boy who was baptized in Rome in the latter-half of the 19th century (he was near death and a Catholic woman secured him a baptism, upon which he was removed from his parents’ home and became a warden of the Vatican, given that he was now considered Catholic and a Jewish environment was no longer considered suitable for his spiritual needs and well-being).

 

[Portofino]

O.K. You have exhausted yourself showing us that people disagree. But you haven’t answered tonyrey’s question, have you?

"Do you believe the principle that we should do what we believe to be right is relative or absolute?

In other words are there any exceptions to that principle?"

---

Tony’s question cuts both ways, in a manner I find to be paradoxical. Is it an absolute moral imperative to follow one’s conscience? The paradox there is that this would be true only if one’s conscience is correct. Keep in mind that someone like the Bishop Desmond Tutu – who is an outspoken advocate for same-sex marriage rights and, as a black African, equates them with the civil rights movement – is following his conscience.

So the Catholic follows his conscience in opposing the good bishop; and the bishop follows his conscience in opposing the Catholic. If the good Bishop’s conscience is directing him to advocate for something that is immoral, would it be immoral for the bishop to have failed to obey…the immoral dictates of his conscience? Would it have been moral for him to obey the immoral dictates of his conscience?

How do we get beyond the injunction to always follow what you believe to be moral – and reach a principle whereby you are enjoined to always follow what is actually moral, in fact? And how are you to discern, with indubitable certainty, what is moral, in fact, and what is not?

If Eichmann had really believed that it was moral to obey authority without question, would it have been immoral for him not to act on this conviction? That’s the dilemma I have with Tony’s question.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony’s question cuts both ways, in a manner I find to be paradoxical. Is it an absolute moral imperative to follow one’s conscience? The paradox there is that this would be true only if one’s conscience is correct. Keep in mind that someone like the Bishop Desmond Tutu – who is an outspoken advocate for same-sex marriage rights and, as a black African, equates them with the civil rights movement – is following his conscience.

So the Catholic follows his conscience in opposing the good bishop; and the bishop follows his conscience in opposing the Catholic. If the good Bishop’s conscience is directing him to advocate for something that is immoral, would it be immoral for the bishop to have failed to obey…the immoral dictates of his conscience? Would it have been moral for him to obey the immoral dictates of his conscience?

How do we get beyond the injunction to always follow what you believe to be moral – and reach a principle whereby you are enjoined to always follow what is actually moral, in fact? And how are you to discern, with indubitable certainty, what is moral, in fact, and what is not?

If Eichmann had really believed that it was moral to obey authority without question, would it have been immoral for him not to act on this conviction? That’s the dilemma I have with Tony’s question.

It is always immoral to act against one’s conscience because it is absurd to lament our limitations! We are not expected to be infallible but impeccable.

 

[mek42]

It is always immoral to act against one’s conscience because it is absurd to lament our limitations! We are not expected to be infallible but impeccable.

So when, say, a sociopath conscience, such as it is, says to kill someone hindering the sociopath whim, then murder is moral?

 

[inocente]

It certainly may be subject to dispute anywhere, parochial or otherwise. Does the fact that any or every value is disputed mean there is no absolute value attached to anything?

For example, under what value system would it be right to say that children should be sexually exploited?

So far as I know, only NAMBLA’s (North American Man Boy Love Association) value system would advance that position. But would you agree that NAMBLA is absolutely and objectively wrong to advance such a value as sexual exploitation of a child?

Thank you for providing an example of a change to secular marriage which could never happen because far too many of us would be against it.

We don’t need to prove that it’s absolutely and objectively wrong in order to rule it out, if we did then little or nothing could ever be enforced.

 

[inocente]

Are all systems of values relative? If so relative to what?

Persons? Is so what are persons relative to?

There are lots of value systems, it seems every corporate must these days have its own.

It’s possible that one of them is absolute. The problem is none of us would say anothers’ values are more absolute than our own. So to me your values are relative to mine, to you my values are relative to yours, and only by some method such as who has the biggest gun can we decide.

But if we drop the demand for absolutes, we can instead decide which values to adopt jointly by who gets the most votes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**But if we drop the demand for absolutes, we can instead decide which values to adopt jointly by who gets the most votes. **

We must never drop the demand for absolutes.That way lies madness. Had Germans known that Hitler was absolutely mad, would he have been the one who gets the most votes?

Portofino

**If Eichmann had really believed that it was moral to obey authority without question, would it have been immoral for him not to act on this conviction? That’s the dilemma I have with Tony’s question. **

The dilemma of your answer is that it infers Hitler was right to follow his conscience when he chose to annihilate the Jews as a way to purify the German race. Was he objectively right? Is it not possible that we can lie to ourselves and convince ourselves we are doing the right thing when in truth we are being absolute wrong and sometimes absolutely evil?

 

[inocente]

We must never drop the demand for absolutes.That way lies madness. Had Germans known that Hitler was absolutely mad, would he have been the one who gets the most votes?

Nice play on words and you again proved Godwin’s Law (any online discussion will inevitably eventually make a comparison with the Nazis).

Although I think it’s a reductio ad Hitlerum, after all they opposed equal marriage so who would vote for them?

 

[1AugustSon7]

equal marriage

Marriages are equal. But you are not talking about marriages; you are, in fact, actually talking about homosexual relationships, which are different from marriages because marriages are natural whereas homosexual relationships are not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Portofino

Keep in mind that someone like the Bishop Desmond Tutu – who is an outspoken advocate for same-sex marriage rights and, as a black African, equates them with the civil rights movement – is following his conscience.

Bishop Tutu has gone ga-ga if he thinks same-sex marriage is not the low road to hell. Such marriages are obviously an endorsement of sodomy, which Saint Paul condemned in his letter to the Romans and again in 1 Corinthians.

There are of course a great number of theological anti-Pauline theologians in the Church of England, which is why so many Anglicans are leaving for the Catholic Church. They know the phony argument that conscience trumps scripture.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Nice play on words and you again proved Godwin’s Law (any online discussion will inevitably eventually make a comparison with the Nazis).

A good, useful, historic, and clear comparison to make when needed!

I plan to use it every time you get silly about moral relativism.

 

[mek42]

Marriages are equal. But you are not talking about marriages; you are, in fact, actually talking about homosexual relationships, which are different from marriages because marriages are natural whereas homosexual relationships are not.

What other species in the natural world exchange vows?