For the purposes of this blog I want it known that I do not know if my thoughts line up with Church teaching or any other teaching. I simply wanted to flesh out my opinion for my own sake and that of my readers. It's not set in stone. I guess the best way to put it is that this is how I see things right now.
Dungy, Matt, tell me why I'm wrong.
---
I believe true marriage to be something only possible between a man and a women. I believe it is a sacrament, but I acknowledge that the world has reduced it in legal terms to little more than a government acknowledged contract.
Legally speaking, I have almost no way of arguing against gay marriage. Morally, I find it wrong.
The problems I do have with legalizing it tend to come from the fact that I believe doing so will have a negative effect on society in the long term by totally legitimizing what until recently was a subculture, and that it's legalization, if done without stipulation, can lead to the infringement of religious freedom of others. (Say the a church with a reception hall being legally forced to rent a wedding reception hall to a gay couple).
I wrote on the comments of my last blog that I was generally opposed to gay marriage. This is true morally speaking, but in a non-theocratic nation, too damn bad for me. While I don't like it, I don't get to say it can't happen.
I maintain that true marriage, in the true sense of what the word means, cannot occur between same sex couples. Nevertheless, again, to the government, marriage is little more than a contract. Why should I care who the government allows to enter into these contracts?
That said let me throw this out there.
My opposition is not an attack on gay people and it is not hate speech or any other crap like that. (Cue personal recounting of gay friends) I have had plenty of gay friends, both men and women, and I am proud to say that for the most part we were always able to discuss our differences on this matter without things getting heated.
Discrimination is wrong. Gays shouldn't be denied any rights.
But true marriage isn't supposed to be a right (speaking outside the legal sense), it's a vocation, a calling. Our government said otherwise though when it adopted the concept of marriage being civily recognized. Once that happened, I guess it was only a matter of time until we got to here.
It's important to make the distinction between marriage as a legal status and marriage as a religious/spiritual status. You kinda put a spin on this by saying that "the world" has reduced "true marriage" to some narrow legal contract, but it's a correct distinction anyway. Distinguishing between civil and religious conventions and authorities is important in a free society. I don't care if you view the religous aspect as more important, as long as you recognize that they are separate and distinct.
ReplyDeleteWhat's really being questioned here is what constitutes discrimination. In a state where gays have the right to marry, married couples should enjoy the same protection under law as anyone else.
Whether or not a church could be sued for discriminating, depends on the act itself, and ultimately the opinion of a jury. The circumstances determine whether moral objections to a gay union are justified reason enough to deny service.
I think it's safe to say that refusing to marry a gay couple would NOT be seen as discriminatory since moral objections to homosexuality are VERY relevant marriage as a religous calling. I think it would be VERY difficult to convince a jury that this is discrimination, simply by saying "I cannot, in good conscience marry you".
Alternatively, denying access to a charity for no other reason but because you morally object to their homosexuality could very easily qualify as discrimination. Even if it involves placing children in homes, you need good reason to deny service. A moral objection that's not supported by public opinion won't do.
Whether denying gays access to a recreation hall that is owned by a church constitutes discrimination is a thinker. Is it a part of a church itself? Is it adjacent? Is it reserved for religious purposes or is it rented to outside groups regularly. If it invokes no moral question at all, I would say yes. If it's closely joined to religious purposes, I would say no.
"The problems I do have with legalizing it tend to come from the fact that I believe doing so will have a negative effect on society in the long term by totally legitimizing what until recently was a subculture..."
ReplyDeleteHmm, I have a suspicion you had more to say on this particular topic, but chose not to say it because you knew you'd be jumped on for it. My guess would have to be the always popular slippery slope fallacy. So, am I right?
Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with what you had to say. You are, of course, entitled to believe marriage was established by God and that it was intended to unify a man and a woman.
You and the Catholic Church can continue to view and conduct marriage in the proper way. But honestly, would it be any business of yours, or any other Christian, if a gay couple were to be married by a judge, or some particularly liberal protestant church? I mean, God is already taken out of this former mode of marriage, and there are plenty of heterosexual couples who choose to be married by a judge. So, out of curiosity, why are you obligated to recognize their marriage as legit, but not the marriage of a homosexual couple?
natural order and what not.
ReplyDeleteAnd Dungy I hope you're right but anymore I don't know what the law will do.
ReplyDeleteI think that anti-discrimination laws have gone to far in all corners of society anyway. If I own an apartment complex in a nice part of town and by coincidence all my tenants are nice well to do old folk and some college kid (who can afford it) wants to move it, I wouldn't be allowed to deny him based on age right? That's dumb. There needs to be some wiggle room.
Also, getting back to Matt, the reason Catholics make it our business is because it highlights a spectacular failure on our part to convert the world as we were so ordered. It pisses us off to see obvious ways in which we failed. Also, it IS wrong and we don't like to see wrong things get a government stamp of approval.
But like I said, I don't have a legal argument against it.
I don't think there's a slippery slope here. I do think it these laws, or the basis for them, could lead to other aspects of marital law being challenged or adapted but not in some long way that leads to men marrying trees or any nonsense.
What makes you think I've got some hidden thoughts here anyway?
Oh Boo hoo. This is a step in the right direction. It's in the interest of fairness and justice, not persecution of religion.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly scares you, the mere possibility of the church being prosecuted? The acknowledgement that there may have been wrongdoing? That a delegation of society would percieve wrongdoing? Whatever that feeling of alienation and fear, I think you'd better get used to it. Gays have successfully persuaded us to reevaluate our views on homosexuality. You have failed. Stick to your guns if you want to, but be prepared to be seen as backward and immoral by the rest of society. It's the price you pay for resisting change. Man up, and stop whining.
As you may imagine my friend, I am proud to be seen as backwards on this one.
ReplyDeleteIt's also backwards these days to even suggest that premarital sex is bad, that a nuclear family is a preferable thing, that not all things are acceptable and even that God exists.
I really have no problem being called backward and immoral by a society that disagrees with that.
What scares me? I don't know, that the Church won't be permitted by law to continue to act in accordance with it's beliefs. I don't see inquisition (irony not lost) style persecution but something.
Also, I'm not afraid to admit part of my discomfort comes from the fact that the Church has enjoyed the luxury of being with the mainstream of society for years (not so much lately) and now we're losing that. The loss of position, or status, that accompanies this, is not lost on me and I'm not a fan of that.
Superficial though it might be, it was nice being top dog. We're still the largest denomination of Christianity, but I don't think we will be long the way the world is going.
"What makes you think I've got some hidden thoughts here anyway?"
ReplyDeleteYour wording. While something along the lines of forcing a church to rent out its recreation hall to a gay couple could, under certain circumstances, count as a rights violation, it doesn't really seem egregious enough to say society is going to suffer a negative impact. After all, the courts would probably quickly rectify this rights violation.
In my experience, when opponents of gay marriage assert that legalizing it will have "negative effects" on society, it's pretty much always been an appeal to the slippery slope fallacy. Yeah, guys will start marrying five women and six other dudes, and people will start marrying their pets, and pedophiles will have a heyday marrying babies...
Of course, the burden of proof is on the naysayers. Do they have evidence to show our society is likely to progress down this path? Well, I've never seen any.
"I don't think there's a slippery slope here. I do think it these laws, or the basis for them, could lead to other aspects of marital law being challenged or adapted but not in some long way that leads to men marrying trees or any nonsense."
Ok, but you do believe allowing gay marriage will lead to additional challenges to what constitutes a legal union. It might never reach the point of men wanting to marry trees, but I'm sure something like polygamy seems like a far more immediate and realistic threat, right? (There really isn't a point to this question besides blatant curiosity).
"the reason Catholics make it our business is because it highlights a spectacular failure on our part to convert the world as we were so ordered. It pisses us off to see obvious ways in which we failed. Also, it IS wrong and we don't like to see wrong things get a government stamp of approval."
Look, I know you wont agree with this, but here's how I see the issue. The institution of marriage is as old as dirt. It predates the advent of the written word, and as such, the purpose of its establishment is clouded in doubt. Sure, maybe it had a religious origin, or maybe it was a contractual agreement for exclusive access to a woman's womb? Chances are there were multiple origins throughout the ancient world. Anyway, I think there is good reason to cast doubt that religious institutes have some sort of exclusive ownership to marriage.
I don't see a direct correlation between gay marriage and polygamy, but opening up marriage to redefinition based on popular opinion could lead to unforeseen challenges down the road. I don't know what they are. 50 years ago no one would have conceived of gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a Utah polygamy law is undergoing a court challenge as we speak, but not based on gay marriage law.
My comment about the negative effects on society are just my opinion. I think allowing equating the gay lifestyle to an equal alternative is bad for humanity, and it's historically unprecedented so I don't know what will happen. Call it fear of the unknown if you like.
And you're right, I disagree on the last bit. I'd narrow marriage down even further than belonging to religious institutes to call it a Catholic sacrament that predates even the worldly incarnation of the Church or salvation itself.
"It's also backwards these days to even suggest that premarital sex is bad, that a nuclear family is a preferable thing, that not all things are acceptable and even that God exists."
ReplyDeleteHyperbole much?
When you're ready to stop bawling in a high pitched squeal, flailing your arms against the keyboard in impotent rage, screaming that the world is against you in every way, and put your big boy pants on, I'll be waiting.
Our culture is not rejecting morality. It is rejecting your morality. It's rejecting the ethical equivilant of an autocracy, in favor of a system where the people decided right and wrong based on what works in the real world. It's far from perfect. It needs work. You COULD help. You could be a useful voice of dissent; You could make this society more morally upright. You could argue that a promiscuous sex life can hurt your ability to feel close to your partner. But you can't, because in YOUR system, that's not the point. The point is simply to do what God says and that's the end of it. That's why the church is being left behind. "Do it or I'll fucking spank you" isn't a compelling argument anymore. The rest of us are growing up. Stay in the playpen if you like. Color. Finger paint. Have a juice box. But stay away from the grown up affairs until you can act like a grown up.
One, so because it's hyperbole to you it's not true?
ReplyDeleteNext, the people decide based on what works. Ok. So as the times change so does right and wrong? I'm not asking sarcastically, just asking.
Also the church does teach about the dangers and risks of promiscuity besides just how it affects the soul, a great deal in my educational experience. Our reasoning comes from God, but were happy to show why it makes sense from a more worldly perspective more often than not.
You think I'm being childish, but I see your attitude on this, and that of this worldview like whiny teenagers who are convinced for the moment that father doesn't know best. Or in this case that there in no Father.
I'll grant this, if there's no God, you're right on all counts. But I really really know, i believe if you'd rather, there is.
I'll even grAnt that my baser instincts want to believe that it's ok to live however you want and that all lifestyles and views are a ok, but I can't man.
All I'm doin with these blogs is usually trying to make a point or flesh out my views, no need to get nasty.
John, you said it was backward in this country to even suggest that God exists. Yes, that's hyperbole. And no, it's not true. The majority of Americans are not hardcore athiests like me. The majority of Americans do believe in God, even if they may not be Catholic.
ReplyDeleteI have no desire to be nasty and hurt my friend, John. At least not without reason. On the other hand, you are consistently taking a pose of self-pity that I find way out of proportion, and on an emotional level, sincerely repulsive.
You have consistently taken the pose of an oppressed minority who is being threated by a hostile public. You have consistently whined and insinuated that you are not free to express ideas of right and wrong. Why? Because you are being held to the same standards as the rest of us? Because if your church commits wrongdoing it may suffer a consequence?
You act as if the whole of secular society is represents the worst that MTV has to offer. An endless orgy where ethics of any kind are verboten, and you must believe that every possible action is perfectly permissible. Simply because we do not accept your Church as the source of morality? That means we have abandoned any concept of right and wrong in favor of a permenant debauch?
Besides the self pity, besides blowing society at large into a giant ridiculous MTV strawman, what really gets me is this. You can openly ponder for a very long time the merits of coercing people into acting morally as a matter practicality (which technique would work better?) without stating a belief that it would be inherently wrong to stamp on peoples rights like that - then turn around and bemoan how society could possibly legally enforce a matter that you disagree with. That's a level of compartmentalization that's startling.
I have no problem with aggression. I would welcome an act of naked aggression against the secular world, on your part. I would salute your show of strength! I certainly have no compunction against it myself. But don't attack while crying about being attacked. Don't try to play a victim, while you are in the position to victimize.
I know most Americans aren't atheists, but they are pansies.
ReplyDeleteThey might generally agree with the statements I made, but they certainly wouldn't air those views in a public forum. Many Christians/Americans are seeming to believe in this God, but they keep him to themselves and only talk about these things in the presence of those who agree with them.
Outside of that bubble of people, it does seem that people consider it backwards to talk about these things openly from the traditional Christian perspective.
I am certainly free to express my ideas, the ideas I'm expressing however are those of what has become a counter-culture, and I don't think that's the way it should be but it is what it is.
It isn't that my Church isn't accepted by the secular world that irks me. It's that I don't draw a distinction between, God, the Church's teaching and what is right. The three are one. A rejection of any of that is a rejection of objective morality, the source of which is God.
No society hasn't dropped to the level of public orgies on Times Square and men marrying goats and I don't think that it will, even with the continued rejection of God's teachings, but such a society is rejecting the source of all good, if it finds some good on it's own I guess we're either lucky or it's divine providence.
I don't think I'm compartmentalizing here. My question in the ponderings you reference was whether or not we should balance freedom and right, or seek only what it right etc. I hadn't made any decision firmly on that. I'm operating on this blog entry on my standby view that freedoms are important.
To end this novel of a response, I'm not sure I see what kind of aggression you're looking for but I'll go the opposite way here anyway with a mea culpa.
You are right on the straw man front, but I'm not being intellectually dishonest by creating it, I was reacting emotionally. There is no "the world" with evil secular intentions out there. Most people, no matter their beliefs, are probably just trying to do what they think is the right thing.
I tend to blow things out of proportion like that with some regularity, but that is how it feels sometimes. I'll try to remember something I wish more people considered, that how it feels, isn't necessarily how it is.
"A rejection of any of that is a rejection of objective morality, the source of which is God."
ReplyDeleteYou've said this about a hundred times since this starting this blog. That without belief in God there is no such thing as objectivity. Without faith everything is relative. This belief is patently absurd. Every human experience on this planet, in the history of humanity is evidence to objective reality in nature. Picking up an object and letting it drop, is consistent evidence to the existance of gravity. Concepts of right and wrong are no different. We may not fully understand the complexities of them right now, or ever, but they are an objective fact to be discovered, just like anything else.
You are rejecting objective morality, not objectivity itself. There is a difference.
ReplyDeleteI disagree.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it would be wrong for me to cheat on my wife. I believe, for the same reason, it's wrong for others to cheat on their wives.
Now there are circumstances where I feel the judgement isn't so clearcut (like someone with an open marriage), but generally I hold it to be consistant across the board. I (and almost all people) do not feel that there are special rules for ourselves, and we can change those rules from one moment to the next if it seems convenient to do so.
Isn't that objectivity in morality? We do not control it, it is higher than our own appetites, and we must adjust our own behavior in accordance with it (not the reverse).
No because you're picking and choosing your morality, making yourself fill the role God fills for Christians.
ReplyDeleteI situation of an open marriage objectively immoral, I know most Christians would think so. It's seems possible that some atheists would as well. So if we're talking objectivity, it either is or isn't immoral. Who decides? Each according to his own sense of things? That's not objective.
Am I making sense?
No, you're not. I think you're confusing objectivity with something else. Maybe "absolute".
ReplyDeleteIf we both observe a bank robbery, you from one end of the bank, and me from another we may come up with different accounts of which robber pulled his gun first.
Either I'm right, or you're right, or neither of us is right - but we can't both be right. If ours is the only testimony to go off of, we may have to leave it at an impasse and say "agree to disagree".
That doesn't mean that we're rejecting objectivity and accepting both our testimonies as objectively true.
Likewise, I may percieve an open marriage as not inherently immoral, but you do. We can argue, and if neither is persuaded we may agree to disagree. That doesn't mean that we reject the objective nature of morality.
For you, two separate things (being aware of objective rightness and wrongness, and being certain of what is right and wrong) are one and the same. But for myself, I know that there is an underlying order of right and wrong, but I don't claim much certain knowledge of it's particulars.
OK, I can see what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteI guess the thing is, because I know/believe in God and all, that I do claim to know right and wrong in most situations. Obviously not all.
Being aware of objective rightness and wrongness, and being certain of what is right and wrong are not really one and the same to me. I am aware of the objective right or wrong, and I believe very often I know what they are because of information provided to mankind from God.
But I feel God is the source of those things. I'll guess I'll get more into that when I write that longer blog.
The advantage of morality as a set of absolute laws from an absolute source is that it's easier to condemn wrong action, without having to consider the (near endless) details of context around it.
ReplyDeleteThat simplicity and certainty comes at a cost, though. And it's pretty damned high, I think.
The notion that even the simplest moral commandments like "thou shalt not kill" is absolute and consistently wrong no matter the situation is simply absurd. Murdering someone in good health in the prime of their life, and mercy-killing a terminally ill patient, who is begging to be released from several weeks of intense pain that await them are not the same thing. They do not carry the same weight of wrongness. The latter may in fact be the correct action. But under such a simple, absolute moral law, you must equate them. They most hold the same weight of wrongness, since they have both violated the same law.
That's a pretty cold, pragmatic evaluation, though. I don't reject absolute morals because they're impractical. I reject them because they're wrong. Anyone with common sense who is faced with a real world moral question should be able to determine that for themselves. So, it especially rankles when someone like yourself not only defends it, but insists that it's the only true morality.
But they're not all absolute and there are degrees of wrong. As Catholics we note them as venial and mortal sins. And from my vantage, if there is a distinction there, there is nothing wrong with quantifying two kinds of killing as different kinds of wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut still both are wrong.
I'm sorry it rankles you but it is not wrong. You see the Church as more rigid than it is. But even so, proceeding from the belief in God, who gave us Jesus and the Church and the Bible, it all makes complete sense to me.
The commandment is generally taken to mean thou shall not murder. It is applied to abortion and murder for obvious reasons and to euthanasia because even if someone wants to die, regardless of why, they do not have the right to do so, only God determines the time of death. However the Church teaches that extraordinary means, ie feeding tubes, breathing support do not have to be used, one can "leave it to God."
In some cases they are not making decisions clearly either but in some I'm sure they are. Getting someone else to kill them brings another person into sin and is a terrible thing. I'm fairly certain that's current church teaching on the matter.
I know I throw this sort of thing in a bunch but it's what I beleive.
An almighty God who created the universe did a bunch of things in the world, had people record some of it, preserved the teaching from the dawn of time to now tells me through scripture, tradition or his Church that a thing is so. I believe him. He also tells me he is the way. That's the way I'm going man.
OK, we've each clarified our point of views.
ReplyDeleteYou have a right to your beliefs, as do I. We have a right to heartily disagree and oppose one another, as I'm sure we're both aware.
You also have a right to characterize any sense of morality that's not based on God as being wishy-washy, relative and "not objective".
And I have a right to call BS on that.
You have a right to defend church doctrine by citing church doctrine. And I have a right to call BS on that too.
You have a right to whine on your own blog about how oppressed your Church is. And I have a right to call BS on that too.
I do not have the power to make you believe or unbelieve. Even if I did have the ability to coerce you out of belief, I don't think I'd use it. I respect your power as an individual to choose what you want for yourself. But that respect doesn't run so far that I'm going to be silent while you say whatever you want, no matter how ridiculous. You do not have the right to be spared dissent. I am obligated - at the very least - to call BS on it.
These last couple of blogs have exploded between the two of you. It makes it hard to jump in.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, John said something that I think needs to be examined a bit more closely.
"...and to euthanasia because even if someone wants to die, regardless of why, they do not have the right to do so, only God determines the time of death."
I really would like to know what the term FREE WILL means to a Christian? Is it some sort of abomination meant to be stripped away as fast as possible?
Look, we're dealing with two contradictory viewpoints here. One says people have the free will to err from God. The other says to hell with free will and strives to prevent people from erring from God (even though their actions are irrelevant if they don't have faith. They're still going to Hell). This is either doublethink or blatant hypocrisy.
Is there a secular argument for preventing euthanasia? I really can't think of one. Really, it seems inhumane to force a person to suffer through their last remaining days when they don't wish to. I think this is yet another case of our government overstepping its boundaries and allowing religion into were it doesn't belong.
"only God determines the time of death."
So how exactly does murder fit into this, anyway? Is the murderer predestined to commit the crime? Did God force someone to sin so another person could die the exact way God wanted him to?
A major misunderstanding in the world today is that freedom means all things are permissible.
ReplyDeleteIf however some things are right and some are wrong, you can still DO all things, but some of them are not permitted. That doesn't touch free will.
I choose sin quite often, I'm not permitted to sin. I do. I'm a sinner. If I lacked free will, I wouldn't be doing wrong.
Same with euthanasia man. What's contradictory about this? There is teaching on the matter and then there's secular laws, they're different things but I'm not sure where I stand on all that anyway.
Unlike gay marriage, I do have some non religious objections to assisted suicide. It's legalization will force many old and infirm
And back to free will, let me phrase it different. Only God should determine the time of death, but people WHO HAVE FREE WILL, sometimes take things into their own hands and kill people.
I think what Matt's trying to say is that if Euthanasia is a sin, the punishment that comes along with using your free will to sin in that way is spiritual - it's hell. Why legislate morality to prevent people from using their free will to sin? They will already suffer the spiritual consequence of their actions. It doesn't make sense why Christians would be so selective about using legal force to prevent sin.
ReplyDeleteSin is bad, therefore discouraging sin should be good.
ReplyDeleteBut anyway I don't have a hard line on legislation of morality so I have nothing to add.
"Sin is bad, therefore discouraging sin should be good."
ReplyDeleteRight, that equation makes sense if free will has a NULL value and is out of the picture.
I think what Matt and I are uncovering is that in Christianity, free will does indeed have a null value, and it's not in the picture. If you can discourage - up to and including coercion - sin, then there's nothing in Christian ethics to stop you.
If that's so, then... yeah. That's a problem.
All I'm saying is I disagree.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure whether to continue. It might not be worth it.
ReplyDeleteWell, if John's on hiatus from serious blogging, then I guess there's not much point in continuing. It'll just fall on deaf ears.
ReplyDeleteI hereby issue an open challenge to any Christians who might read this.
ReplyDeleteI challenge you to produce scripture that places a value on free will, and either openly asserts or implies that it is something to be respected or preserved.
I do not believe that such scripture exists. I require proof to change that opinion.