Friday, September 23, 2011

Two Dictators in Action



In an earlier post this week I commented on three fallacies which are omnipresent in our relativistic society. To borrow an image from the Holy Father--"the dictatorship of relativism" is alive and well. The three are sentimentalism, utilitarianism and politics, and two of the three are in full swing in this video.

Here we have John and Richard. What a couple of genuinely nice fellas! They are clearly devoted to one another and have had sixty one years of happiness together.  Two absolutely sweet old codgers. How could anyone be so hard hearted and calloused to refuse to allow these lovable old guys to tie the knot? It just makes you angry doesn't it that people would refuse such sweet old dears (who are not doing anybody any harm) to get hitched? Well that's the sentimental argument in full swing, and I mean really full, home run hitting swing.

Now check what happens next. If you don't buy the sentimental argument; if you say, "Well, they're a couple of nice old coots, but they shouldn't get married" you will be blamed not only for not having compassion, but for being cynical about 'love'. You will be blamed for being cruel. You will be blamed for not granting these old guys the good things about their relationship. You will be blamed for thinking that they are just as awful as the gay pride bath house monsters that parade naked through the streets and commit sado masochistic sex acts on the steps of the cathedral.

But that's not what we're saying at all. We can admit that Richard and John seem to be just about as nice as can be. We can admire what seems to be a faithful friendship over the years. We can admire the fact that the loyalty of their friendship seems to outstrip lots of heterosexual couples we can think of. We acknowledge that they love each other, as only old friends can. We can admire their loyalty and love. We could even admit that, for practical reasons,  they might have a legal contract which grants each other property rights on death.

Nevertheless, they can't be married because they're two men. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and we resent the dictator of sentimentalism bullying us otherwise.

The second little dictator is the political argument. See how it all ends? They smile and say winningly, "Don't we have a right to be married?" Then the clincher comes up--the slogan "Freedom to Marry Now". So the dictator of sentimentalism hands over the stage to the dictator of politics and it turns into a question of 'equality' and 'civil rights'. To deny Richard and John marriage is to be a bigot. The second little dictator of political argument is a self righteous, passive aggressive little dictator--all bluster and posturing and lecturing and hectoring and when that doesn't work, the wounded look, playing the martyr and putting on that self righteous, victim expression so beloved of the rebellious adolescent.

Once again, we don't mind sentimental and political arguments. They have their weight, as do all subjective and personal arguments. What we object to is not that there are such arguments, but that they are the only arguments, and what we have now is not only that these are the only arguments, but that those who hold them deny that there could possibly be any other arguments.

That such people wish to re-define marriage and impose their views not only on the vast majority of unwilling United States citizens, but also think that they should impose their views despite the opinions of the vast majority of human beings around the world who are alive today--not to mention the vast majority of those human beings who have lived in every place and in every age down through history is preposterous and dictatorial in the extreme.

When Christians and self identified Catholics also support such a radical and ludicrous innovation despite the fact that this definition of marriage is upheld throughout Sacred Scripture, never questioned by virtually all theologians and Bible scholars of all traditions from time immemorial, and is an integral part of the whole Catholic faith upheld at all times and all places by the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church, is simply breathtaking in it's audacity.

UPDATE:  Go here for Archbishop Dolan's letter to President Obama about the administration's attack on the Defense of Marriage Act.

12 comments:

  1. Gosh, Father. When you write a post about logic and logical fallacies, you might want to look at the big huge incident of circular reasoning in this statement from your post:

    "Nevertheless, they can't be married because they're two men. Marriage is between a man and a woman..."

    In other words, the BASIS for why civil marriage cannot (can never) include two people of the same sex is because...um...well...it always must be between people of the OPPOSITE sex. Even though the issue being debated in the public square is whether marriage might be defined, in the context of civil law, in broader terms than it is currently defined in most states.

    Here's my similarly circular argument using a different topic. It is illegal to own goldfish in my state. Therefore, because it is illegal to own goldfish, we can never change the law and recognize the right of responsible adults to own goldfish. Never. End of argument.

    Most adults, of course, would not take that sort of reasoning seriously. But that's essentially the shape your argument has taken. You're still welcome, of course, to criticize others' arguments for the fallacies you perceive in them. Whatever you do, just don't look too closely at your circular argument and you'll feel fine about what you're saying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve, the statement-- "they can't be married because they're two men. Marriage is between a man and a woman." is not a form of circular logic or for that matter any kind of reasoning at all. It's a simple statement of fact based on observation.

    That marriage is between a man and a woman has been the definition of all human beings in all societies in all ages and in all places wherever any of them have had any idea of marriage at all.

    Some few societies may have tolerated homosexual behavior, but none of them allowed two men or two women to marry each other.

    Therefore the statement does not require logical reasoning or argument any more than the statement "Water is wet" requires argumentation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "That marriage is between a man and a woman has been the definition of all human beings in all societies in all ages and in all places wherever any of them have had any idea of marriage at all."

    Uh oh, looks like you're resorting to the dictatorship of the majority, Father.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alfred, not only is this definition of marriage upheld, yea, never even questioned by the vast majority of human beings in every time and in every place, but for those of us who are Catholic Christians (assuming that you are one if you are reading this blog) it is also upheld throughout the Sacred Scriptures, by virtually all theologians, bishops and scholars of all Christian traditions from time immemorial, and is an integral part of the teaching of the Catholic faith upheld by the divine Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

    Shall we really call ourselves Catholic and stand against such authority?

    But I don't know you, and it may be that you are not Catholic, or even Christian, so you may not understand or accept such authority.

    If that is the case, I invite you cordially to investigate the Catholic faith with an open mind and heart to discover the beauty, truth and love of Christ in its fullness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, Father, so you move from an argument appealing to the masses(almost everyone believes this) to an argument from authority(the right people believe this).


    I'm also aware that doctrine develops. At the start of the 20th century the holy office instructed that it must be taught that Moses wrote the pentetauch and 80 years later we have JPII making use of the documentary hypothesis in Wednesday audiences.
    The problem of how to reconcile the magisterium with belief in the goodness of homosexuality doesn't keep me up at night, but quotes such as the following from Cardinal Levada give me hope: " There is a long tradition in the church of accepting the institution of slavery--John Noonan points this out effectively--but in the light of the repeated teachings of modern popes and the Second Vatican Council on the dignity of the human person, church teaching has evolved from acceptance of slavery as part of the human condition to its eventual condemnation."

    It's possible for the church to develop moral insights and make course corrections.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shall we leave aside religion for the moment while taking a look at marriage? Let us suspend the theological argument that from the beginning, God made marriage to unite male and female in one flesh for the duration of their earthly lives in mutual companionship and for the procreation of children.

    If we look at the 'evolution' of marriage from an anthropological point of view, wouldn't it go something like this? Man likes woman, (maybe) she likes him. They lie together, she gets pregnant. Women wants protection whilst she is with child. Man wants to know child is his. Both want someone to feed them when they can't go hunting anymore. Both want honour from the tribe for rearing up the next generation. Hey, let's get the tribe to witness that we're making this union for the sake of practicality, eh? Now, why should such a thing be necessary for a barren union?

    Steve, Alfred, why did the pagan Greeks (who actually lauded their gay liaisons above that of straight ones) not ask the Athenian State to legalize their bonded unions? Because those unions were sterile, and there was no reason for the State to take any interest in a relationship that would not propogate its interests. The same should apply to straight couples that deliberately sterilize themselves. It is not the place of the State to pronounce on personal relationships much less to give certain erotic relationships special privileges. Will it be interfering with our friendships next?

    And if one should turn from dry logic back to theology, sorry Alfred, but you should just admit you're licked, before Father refutes the numerous fallacies in your last post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jacobitess, part of what you imply is that procreation will just about stop if we (as a civil society, under civil law) allow people who are gay or lesbian to marry the consenting adult whom they love. You come mighty close to suggesting that babies will no longer be born--to virtually anyone--if marriage equality becomes the law of the land.

    Honestly? You think everyone (straight folks included) will choose to marry someone of his or her own sex? Heterosexuals (the vast majority of the population) will, over the course of decades or even centuries, find partners of the same sex rather than follow their heterosexual inclinations? Doesn't seem likely to me. Babies will still be born. (God bless them.) Life goes on. The world does not end if marriage equality becomes the law of the land.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Uh oh, looks like you're resorting to the dictatorship of the majority

    My goodness Alfred. I'm so glad that I've encountered someone who wishes to speak up about this.

    In order to remain consistant in this position, can I now expect you to be quite vocal in your public support for those brave members of the gay community that are against gay marraige?

    Furthermore, I await with great amusement your forthcoming apologetics in which you defend the rights of those that have left the gay lifestyle behind them from being discriminated against and not being allowed to have their voices heard.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "And if one should turn from dry logic back to theology, sorry Alfred, but you should just admit you're licked, before Father refutes the numerous fallacies in your last post."

    I don't mind having fallacies in my reasoning pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Those who scorn tradition as "argument by authority" or "appeal to the masses" seem to be unaware that they are themselves committing the fallacy of Chronological Snobbery. As C.S. Lewis wrote, Chronological Snobbery is:

    ... the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.

    The burden of proof is therefore on the shoulders of those who claim that we have suddenly gained new insights, entirely unknown to our ancestors, that would justify a revolutionary overhaul of the ancient institution of marriage.

    So tell us: What grand and previously unheard-of things have we moderns learned about the nature of same-sex attraction of which our ancestors were ignorant? What earth-shaking revelation has been vouchsafed to us in the past fifteen or twenty years that renders it so necessary all of a sudden to allow men to "marry" men?

    As another great sage wrote [emphases added]:

    [Tradition] is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob ... Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.

    - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve: It is not a circular argument. The definition of marriage is a certain kind of union between a man and a woman. That is not the "traditional" definition, or the "old" definition, but the actual definition -- something that predates all societies and all governments. You would like this to be up for argument, but it's not. The only way for a man to "marry" a man or a woman to "marry" a woman is to redefine marriage -- in which case it won't BE marriage anymore, it will be something else entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It has never been about allowing homosexuals to marry. It has always been about destroying the institution of marriage, which is something militant homosexuals simply cannot stand, because it gives the lie to their chosen perversion. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply naive.

    ReplyDelete