Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[Euler]

As usual, you have it all backwards here. If you've been doing any reading on this forum at all, you'd notice that it's actually the atheists who like to hide behind the business structure to say, "You are running a business that serves the public and so you have to follow the law that says you no longer have any say in how you conduct yourself".

Like I said, DISHONEST and COWARDLY!

Please point out where any atheist on this board has put such a claim! I have seen a number of people, atheists AND people of faith, state that those who are bigoted towards gays are nevertheless required to obey the relevant laws. But, no say in how they conduct themselves?? You're lying.

 

[stevevw]

There are secular laws and there are Gods laws. As a citizen of a country and working in that system I have to abide by the laws/legislation's of that society even if I may disagree morally. I think Jesus covered this with give unto Caesar what is Caesars. Organizations like the government make the laws, regulations and legislation's in secular society. But normally those laws wont always take into consideration peoples moral beliefs. It will be based on rights and standard according to secular world views which will be based on the values that society, country or world body will decide upon.

So if you take the foundation for the legislation of human rights this wont always take into consideration religious moral values. Human rights will allow a person to argue that porn is OK and can take its place in society. Or that sex between two consenting adults is OK no matter what so long as it doesn't harm others. But then what is the interpretation of harm to others as this can be argued as well. So it can leave some of the detail a little up in the air because there is no clear foundation that it is based upon.

Its usually subjective and then a consensus is agreed upon after it can be shown to be right according to the majority. But it doesn't really have a basis to start with. So then many things can be argued based on the rights of the individual so long as you can prove that it will discriminate against what you believe. Often minor groups can get their agenda recognized even if the majority may disagree based on this premise.

 

[quatona]

Its usually subjective and then a consensus is agreed upon after it can be shown to be right according to the majority. But it doesn't really have a basis to start with.

Of course it has a basis, it´s just not the basis you´d like it to have.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Yes marriage is an amazing thing that needs defense!

 

[David Brider]

Yes marriage is an amazing thing that needs defense!

From what?

 

[stevevw]

quatona

Of course it has a basis, it´s just not the basis you´d like it to have

So what is that great basis that we should judge things by.

 

[Inkfingers]

One thing I notice about ethical conversations with Christians is they can give me a non religious explanation for Christian ethics - except when it comes to Gay Marriage, in which case their opposition seems to rest entirely on a handful of bible verses.

Can anyone provide a reason for opposing gay marriage - without invoking scripture or theology?

When a society legitimises non-procreative sex they also legitimise sex with children who are above the age of criminal responsibility (10 in the UK); because if you can consent to committing murder you can consent to sex (the latter being a far less serious matter than the former).

So a society should never grant recognition to sexual relationships that cannot procreate.

And marriage is inherently sexual.

So they can call their relationship whatever they like, but it should be given no recognition by either church, state or any sane member of society.

Note: this applies equally to heterosexual marriage with or between sterile people, and it also applies to the use of contraceptives. Christians need to wake up to the fact that it far more than a matter of same-sex "marriage" which is the issue here.....or in short, stop picking on the gays when you are partaking of the very same behaviour.

 

[quatona]

quatona
So what is that great basis that we should judge things by.

Compare what you ask here to what I said. Then remove the parts you have added, and ask a question that fits my statement.
You are not my wife, after all.
Thanks.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Marriage needs defense from being used as a means to pride and from alteration of meaning.

 

[quatona]

dp

 

[quatona]

Marriage needs defense from being used as a means to pride and from alteration of meaning.

If I were married, I wouldn´t know who could possibly alter the meaning of my marriage, except for me and/or my wife. So I guess I would be quite relaxed in that respect.

 

[stevevw]

Compare what you ask here to what I said. Then remove the parts you have added, and ask a question that fits my statement.
You are not my wife, after all.
Thanks.

You'velost me. This is what I said about secular societies views on what is right. I was speaking about the laws, legislation and regulations of society and how they dont always take religious morals into consideration. I then said that human rights are the same and there is no clear foundation they have used and its based on subjective views. You then said of course they have a basis. I asked a simple question, "what is that basis according to you."

You have refuted what I said. I thought when you said that you had a reply. Why say it has got a basis and then not say what it is. Its quite a simple request. Is it humanity or love or decency. What does secular society use as a basis to measure what is right and wrong for their laws and legislation's. I know I said the consensus of that society but that doesn't tell me anything. Some societies can come to crazy agreements because they believe that they are right under subjective views. The implication I was stating was that its unclear what they base right or wrong or acceptable/unacceptable on and anyone could argue their case. I was saying that the laws dont take religious morals into consideration. Religious morals are normally said to come from God which implies they are objective. So I am asking what secular society uses as a bases for their laws, legislation's and regulations.

 

[quatona]

Youve lost me. This is what I said about secular societies views on what is right. I was speaking about the laws, legislation and regulations of society and how they dont always take religious morals into consideration. I then said that human rights are the same and there is no clear foundation they have used and its based on subjective views. You then said of course they have a basis.

Yes, fair summary.

I asked a simple question, "what is that basis according to you."

No, you didn´t. You asked:

So what is that great basis that we should judge things by.

You added three things:
1. "great"
2. "should"
3. "judge".

Since you said you´ve lost me in my last post, here´s the explanation:
I am losing patience with strawmen. I am beginning to lose patience with criteria being changed in the middle of the argument. I am losing patience with hyperbole. I am losing patience with emotionalisms in a philosophical discussion.
I am tired and exhausted of putting up with this stuff. I wish people would look at what´s being written and address it.
I hope that claifies.

You have refuted what I said. I thought when you said that you had a reply. Why say it has got one and then not say what it is. Its quite a simple request.

Sure I have a reply once the question asked asks to support what I said (instead of adding a lot of stuff).
And you managed to ask the question in a way I can answer it this time - so it´s not so hard if you think twice before hitting the reply-button, is it?

what is that basis according to you.

The basis for developing ideas how to make this world a good place for everyone, for discussing these ideas and for letting these discussions and considerations result in regulations is: the common need and desire to have this world in which people can live a good life and in which we respect each others´ needs as best as possible. The realization that we don´t get anywhere when thinking of ourselves as islands. The realization that we are interdependent.

The fact alone that we have reached a state of consciousness in which "consensus" is a high value makes the question "What is the basis for our moral considerations" obsolete: It is, in itself, the answer. We want to get along with each other.
Since this basis is born out of and deals with the necessities and conditions of our existence, it is a very solid foundation. Nothing else can be the basis. No "beyond"-basis could or would be as relevant for the purpose that morality pursues.

And something else: You may want to call this a "utilitarian" approach, and to a certain extent, it is.
Now the thing is:
I have read countless of your lengthy posts, and in the end of the day, you yourself are revealing time and again that this is the crucial criterium for you as well:
You always go to great lengths drawing pictures as to how certain (in your view: "immoral") developments have undesirable consequences.
So, just like everybody else, you are reverse-engineering and justifying your moral convictions from a desirable result - an idea how you´d like the world to be. You are judging your God´s alleged commands by the same criteria that everybody bases their morality upon: Will this move the world closer to being the world I like to live in, or will it move it further away from it?

Foirtunately, the needs and ideal worlds of humans are - in many basic respects - quite similar (that´s why the horror-scenario "torturing babies for the sheer fun of it" is a desperate attempt at grasping at straws), but there are also individually differing needs. Trying to secure the basic common needs and find compromises how to make sure individual needs (although sometimes in conflict with each other) are met, as well, is the appropriate way of dealing with these facts. I can´t think of any better.

So there´s plenty of basis for the way we deal with things, we approach things. Granted, we are learning by doing, by trial and error. Granted, we are never able to predict all the consequences, but in the absence of a God that must be pleased, all this is a sufficient basis.

Bottom line: It all depends on what you think is the purpose of morality.

 

[stevevw]

quatona

Bottom line: It all depends on what you think is the purpose of morality

From what I'm understanding Its more about just what you think period. What you have just said maybe seen differently to the next person. Well the way in which we should do it will be different. All what you said are good decent things that many people want. I believe we do know what we need to do. But there's two sides to it. Its one thing to come to some sort of agreement if that can be done and know that its the best thing to do. Its another to actually do it.

If there is no God then all what we see is a result of human differences and just the way we are. I wouldn't know what we could do to sort that. Some might say ban religion but then aren't you going against human rights and views anyway. From what I have said it has been pretty simple. We need a simple and clear set of morals we can depend on that will unite us or at least allow us to use as a foundation for building on. I understand your views about what we should have. But as a world we all disagree on that. Some go for personal things like power and money. If we were all honest and put our fellow humans first before all that then yes we can get along. But human nature shows we dont. What the answer is to that, well you know what I believe and I'm not going to go into that by the sounds of what you said. So I guess we can have different views because society says we can.

 

[quatona]

quatona
From what I'm understanding Its more about just what you think period.

Except that neither you nor I can bypass our thinking - so let´s not pretend that it could possibly be about something else. I am not all-knowing, and you are not God´s brain or mouth piece.
Thus, unless you can show that something is not your mere opinion, it will be treated as your opinion just like everybody else´s, and it will not elevate you above the differences in opinion that you keep decrying.

What you have just said maybe seen differently to the next person. Well the way in which we should do it will be different. All what you said are good decent things that many people want. I believe we do know what we need to do. But there's two sides to it. Its one thing to come to some sort of agreement if that can be done and know that its the best thing to do. Its another to actually do it.

Welcome to reality. That´s, however, a problem we are facing no matter what we consider the basis of our morality.

But just so it doesn´t get lost: We do not all agree on everything. We do not all have the same needs. This diversity is a fact and it needs to be accounted for. Any one-fits-all solution does not account for it, and therefore any simple solution is bound to fail.

If there is no God then all what we see is a result of human differences and just the way we are.

Yes, sure. You would find it hard to deal with that fact, but oh well.
That´s what I told you right away: You may not like the basis for a morality in reality in the absence of God, but that doesn´t change the fact that it is a sufficient basis given the hypothetical situation.
[quote I wouldn't know what we could do to sort that.[/quote]
We are doing it all the time. A consensus is something you have to work for.

Some might say ban religion but then aren't you going against human rights and views anyway.

Well, religions are protected by this consensus just as are my views.

From what I have said it has been pretty simple.

Yeah, but as you keep pointing out: People disagree; many disagree with your ideas what the simple rules should look like, many have different ideas what they should look like, others (like me) think that they can´t be simple because they need to account for the complexity and diversity of humans and situations.
So you need to make up your mind: You either take your "people disagree" premise seriously or you don´t.

We need a simple and clear set of morals we can depend on that will unite us or at least allow us to use as a foundation for building on.

We are working our way towards them. It´s not easy, we´re not there, and the rules are anything but simple and will never be as simple as they were in ancient times when life was less complex.

I understand your views about what we should have. But as a world we all disagree on that.

Exactly, that´s the same problem for you and for me. That isn´t solved by saying "We need to accept my ideas.", and it isn´t solved by saying "Take the ideas that I believe my God to have". This disagreement you keep harping on is there, and it won´t go away for you of all. Your opinion is just one of those countless different opinions.

So I guess we can have different views because society says we can.

No, we can have them because we can have them. We don´t need anyone or anything to allow us our views.

But again I am finding myself tangled up in your digressions.
You asked me for the basis in the absence of a God, and I gave it to you.
I predicted you won´t like it (and that you would prefer a divine command), and, alas, that´s where we are.

Personally, even if a God existed, his moral opinion wouldn´t interest me at all. This God doesn´t have to live a human life, and this God could have purposes and ideas that are not in our humans´ best interest. Thus, I personally, wouldn´t a priori accept a divine command as a valid basis for human morality.

E.g. I think that marriage and sexual exclusivity are ethically inferiour, you think the same of promiscuity. Either one of us can show the other the negative consequences and convince him, or not.
I predict none of us will be able to, and no amount of appealing to the need for simple solutions of complex problems nor of claims to divine powers siding with us will make this disagreement away.

All that´s left is either tolerance, the hope that we can preach the other into surrender, or holy wars. You pick your choices.
My choice is clear: I tolerate your ideas of sexuality, I will use every opportunity to support you in your quest to live up to it, I will also support that you aren´t kept from claiming that your God sides with you, I will also support that you keep being allowed to advocate simple solutions to complex problems.
Pretty much everything I would do for everybody else. But you don´t get special treatment or the status of the mouth piece of objectivity just because of your preferences.

 

[stevevw]

quatona

Except that neither you nor I can bypass our thinking - so let´s not pretend that it could possibly be about something else. I am not all-knowing, and you are not God´s brain or mouth piece.
Thus, unless you can show that something is not your mere opinion, it will be treated as your opinion just like everybody else´s, and it will not elevate you above the differences in opinion that you keep decrying.

Thats fair enough and I am not trying to push my beliefs onto others. As I have said before it wouldn't work as secular society is designed to not be tied down especially to anything religious. I would say that what I believe isn't my opinion even if you say that it is what I say. I am not that wise to come up with some of the things Jesus said.

Any one-fits-all solution does not account for it, and therefore any simple solution is bound to fail.

But dont you think whatever is happening now isn't really working after all this time.

Yes, sure. You would find it hard to deal with that fact, but oh well.
That´s what I told you right away: You may not like the basis for a morality in reality in the absence of God, but that doesn´t change the fact that it is a sufficient basis given the hypothetical situation.

It wouldn't worry me as I have been in that situation before. I know exactly what goes on.Thats the trouble I have no problems living that way in so far as ability. Its harder to live as a Christian really. I have never really understood the basis for morality in the world. I have a clear idea now but I am not sure what it would be as far as my everyday life is concerned without that even though I use to live that way. I mean I had some good values but they didn't belong to anything in particular and then they could be changed depending on situations.

We are doing it all the time. A consensus is something you have to work for.

But dont you think its not that simple. Like I said we can know what to do but not do it. Our societies are geared on self. We know right now if we stopped relying on commercialism and shared things with the hungry we could save millions of lives. We do some but nowhere enough and we are capable of doing it. But its the will or maybe I should say spirit.

Yeah, but as you keep pointing out: People disagree; many disagree with your ideas what the simple rules should look like, many have different ideas what they should look like, others (like me) think that they can´t be simple because they need to account for the complexity and diversity of humans and situations.
So you need to make up your mind: You either take your "people disagree" premise seriously or you don´t.

I have accepted that. This world is what it is and I or no one can change that. But even though secular society will allow for that complexity of ideas and views in the mean time something has to become the guiding factor. There will always be something that fills the void. If you want to have a free society then you have to think very carefully about what you promote and associate yourself with as many are open to influence. With freedom comes great responsibility.

We are working our way towards them. It´s not easy, we´re not there, and the rules are anything but simple and will never be as simple as they were in ancient times when life was less complex.

I think some things are very simple. But they are hard to do because they demand sacrifice. Like I said I think we know what needs to be done but its doing it thats the hard thing. We are to entrenched in our way of lives. We could feed the world now if we wanted to and every single person would have a little of enough and no one would have to die for lack of food and medicine.

Exactly, that´s the same problem for you and for me. That isn´t solved by saying "We need to accept my ideas.", and it isn´t solved by saying "Take the ideas that I believe my God to have". This disagreement you keep harping on is there, and it won´t go away for you of all. Your opinion is just one of those countless different opinions.

yes I am well aware of this. But I have seen the power of a united front for good. The ironic thing is in the end if we keep going we will end up with some sort of one world government where a lot of people will be doing things they dont necessarily agree with anyway.

But again I am finding myself tangled up in your digressions.
You asked me for the basis in the absence of a God, and I gave it to you.
I predicted you won´t like it (and that you would prefer a divine command), and, alas, that´s where we are.

Its not so much I dont like it. I just dont understand it. But I do accept it and get on with my life.

My choice is clear: I tolerate your ideas of sexuality, I will use every opportunity to support you in your quest to live up to it, I will also support that you aren´t kept from claiming that your God sides with you, I will also support that you keep being allowed to advocate simple solutions to complex problems.
Pretty much everything I would do for everybody else. But you don´t get special treatment or the status of the mouth piece of objectivity just because of your preferences

Thats fair enough and noble of you. But what if that someone you will support to be allowed to have their beliefs does something you believe is causing damage to your society or leading your children astray.
Fair enough.

 

[quatona]

Steve,

I don´t want us to go in circles through the ever same routines, but I don´t know how to prevent this.

One of your recurring objections seems to be:
'Yes, but people aren´t acting up to their convictions.'
That´s a correct observation (and I would include myself, and you apparently haven´t solved the problems of the world yet, either. ).
But: This isn´t an argument for anything. It affects whatever view and can be observed with people no matter what they have chosen for the basis of their morality.
So, it is not a valid objection to a particular worldview or metaphysical conviction, and it is not an argument in favour of yours.
It´s, for purposes of what we are discussing, plainly irrelevant.

I would say that what I believe isn't my opinion even if you say that it is what I say.

But your opinion as to whether it is your opinion or not is still your opinion. Unless you can demonstrate it to be a fact, you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

I am not that wise to come up with some of the things Jesus said.

That we have adopted an opinion from someone whom we consider wiser than ourselves doesn´t change anything about it being our opinion.
On another note, who is a comparably not-wise person to judge another person smart? Jesus´ opinions appeal to you, that´s why you call them wise. If you could demonstrate how they are particularly wise, there would be at least a start for giving your opinion more credit than anybody else´s.

It wouldn't worry me as I have been in that situation before. I know exactly what goes on.Thats the trouble I have no problems living that way in so far as ability. Its harder to live as a Christian really. I have never really understood the basis for morality in the world. I have a clear idea now but I am not sure what it would be as far as my everyday life is concerned without that even though I use to live that way. I mean I had some good values but they didn't belong to anything in particular and then they could be changed depending on situations.

If I were to summarize this paragraph, I would - in contradiction to your introduction to it - say it is easier for you to live as a Christian.

But dont you think its not that simple.

I said it´s hard work. I didn´t say it was simple.

Like I said we can know what to do but not do it.

See above: I would agree with this, but it is completely irrelevant for the question about the basis.

Our societies are geared on self. We know right now if we stopped relying on commercialism and shared things with the hungry we could save millions of lives. We do some but nowhere enough and we are capable of doing it. But its the will or maybe I should say spirit.
I have accepted that. This world is what it is and I or no one can change that.

You are simplifying things. "Our societies" are a mixture of very different tendencies, convictions and ideals. "Our societies are geared on the self" is just selective perception. You are part of society, I am part of society. Neither of us is "geared on the self", and I know plenty of others who aren´t. So there. Don´t make sweeping generalization.
If your message is "Don´t be geared on the self" there are plenty of ways and opportunities to make yourself heard, the same ways and opportunities every other individual has to promote e.g. the message "Be geared on the self." If you have good arguments you might convince people. Every reasonable argument will make people more likely to be responsive than "I believe in God who says so."

But even though secular society will allow for that complexity of ideas and views in the mean time something has to become the guiding factor. There will always be something that fills the void.

Which void? People do have their convictions - there is no void. Just because they are different than mine doesn´t mean there´s a void in them.
The purpose of pursuing a good way of people getting along with each other is a huge task and is asking a lot from everyone every day. So this alone is enough to prevent there being a void. Society is about nothing but creating a good society, and that´s a full time job.
One thing you probably can´t fathom is the attitude of having one´s own strong convictions, yet embracing the diversity of different people and different convictions.

If you want to have a free society then you have to think very carefully about what you promote and associate yourself with as many are open to influence. With freedom comes great responsibility.

No doubt. But you say that about a "free society" as if the same weren´t true about an unfree society.

I think some things are very simple. But they are hard to do because they demand sacrifice. Like I said I think we know what needs to be done but its doing it thats the hard thing. We are to entrenched in our way of lives. We could feed the world now if we wanted to and every single person would have a little of enough and no one would have to die for lack of food and medicine.

So we are back at: 'even if people know what´s best to do, they often don´t do it'. Again: This isn´t an argument for or against any conviction or whatever. It´s just an observation that affects whatever conviction, including yours. And assuming for a moment that there is a God, it is quite obviously affecting his conviction as well, since it is a problem that his believers have to.
So please stop using this argument.

Thats fair enough and noble of you. But what if that someone you will support to be allowed to have their beliefs does something you believe is causing damage to your society or leading your children astray.

Yes, what to it? Again: we agree that people have different opinions. You needn´t bring it up time and again, as though it´s something that can be blamed on anything in particular. It´s a fact.
I have spend quite some time telling you how I think we deal best with this. And your final objections are always:
1. "But there will be people who will disagree" (Yes, that´s what we have to deal with. Don´t expect me to be able to abolish this fact.
Or, at least, if you want to hold it against my and in favour of your approach, please start showing me how your approach will abolish the fact that people disagree. Now that you have heard my suggestions and aren´t satisfied with them, start giving yours. Not dreams, not desired results, not a hypothetical that works from the premise that disagreements aren´t there - but a practical, workable approach that will gain the desired result of doing away with diversity.
What is your suggestion?
2. "But people don´t do what´s needed even though they are convinced it is good". Yes, and this also is agreed upon - but here also you hold it against certain approaches but haven´t come up with a single practical, workable method that results in making people act up to their convictions. Believing in Gods is not and has, quite obviously, never been warranting this any more than any other conviction.

 

[WindStaff]

"each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband"

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord"

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord. "

"It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife"

"House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord."

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."



The list goes on. I swear, I couldn't find a single thing which would lead me to think it was ever believed by anyone, including Jesus, that it's okay for homosexuals to marry. Direct me please?

Found this though:
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

 

[David Brider]

Marriage needs defense from being used as a means to pride and from alteration of meaning.

If two consenting adults choose to get married "as a means to pride," whatever that means, that's hardly something marriage needs defending from. After all, the result is that two more people have got married.

And nobody, to the best of my knowledge, is trying to alter the meaning of marriage.

 

[David Brider]

"each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband"

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord"

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord. "

"It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife"

"House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord."

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Not sure any of those count as secular reasons. The bit where they're in the Bible, which is a non-secular book...

The list goes on. I swear, I couldn't find a single thing which would lead me to think it was ever believed by anyone, including Jesus, that it's okay for homosexuals to marry. Direct me please?

The Bible doesn't mention same-sex couples getting married. Using that as an argument against same-sex marriage is an argument from silence.

Found this though:
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

What does that have to do with marriage?