« You Can’t Get Western Morality from Science | Main | Advice on Becoming an Apologetics Speaker »

March 06, 2015

Comments

Brilliant! I was thinking about this in response to that skeleton ad, too.

You mean this skeleton ad?

'Love is love' generally assumes two adult human beings who are capable of making choices. In other words, love is love is basically a shorthand catch phrase that fills in for a much longer argument.

Comparing that to beastiality is such a laughable straw man, it's hard to know how to respond with any sort of reasonable counter argument.

Bestiality was only one of the links.

What about the rest?

No, brgulker, you assume two beings who are human. "Love is love" says nothing about the number of people (you'll notice the last article says "love is love," after all) or whether or not those who love love those who are human. That's my point. It's a horrible argument. If you "love," that's supposed to say it all. We're supposed to support it without argument or be a bigot. But of course these examples prove there's more to consider than just whether or not a person feels love.

What's laughable is that you think this argument/slogan will stop working where you want it to stop. It won't. The fact that all of these things are spoken about positively, without judgment, in major news sources is the beginning of that reasoning playing out. You can't confine "love is love" to "two," or "human," or "unrelated." The genie is out of the bottle.

Also, the horse seems fine with it, if you read the original article (which I don't recommend—I only skimmed). So you really don't have an argument there.

Mike, no, I think Josh was referring to this. And it does, as a matter of fact, happen to be what inspired this post.

Love isn't a simple thing as such. Modern usage involves aspects in the following areas: social, psychological, emotional, philosophical, and religious, as well as elements of self-gratification and self-sacrifice. The arguments used to justify departures from what were universally recognized to be unethical only a few years ago trade on one definition of love to justify another definition of love. Once you break down what someone insinuates with what they are trying to justify, you can see that there is a vast disconnect in their argument.

What it boils down to is that people want to be accepted. Their identity is in some passion that they have that is morally questionable at best. So if someone else has reservations about that behavior, they don't feel accepted and likely feel hated instead. So in their insistence that others accept their particular perversion, they label their perversion "love". After all, it gratifies them. That gratification typically blinds them to the ways in which it harms themselves and others. They have mistaken self-gratification, especially if it is in the context of a mutually gratifying relationship, for love. But when we see that people are in relationships that are not mutually gratifying and they still call it "love" then we realize that they are deluded. In fact, if we look closely at how mutually gratifying relationships are being formed, we realize that these are simply an extension of the self-gratification. Look at the complex sociological structure developed to make the polyamorous group work. Even the part where others are to be able to give consent to other members of the group for taking on other mates is couched in the idea that it should ultimately gratify the one giving consent.

The idea of love that it trades on isn't self-gratification, however. It's not even mutual acceptance. It's a concern for he other's happiness. That's not what's happening, but the shift can be subtle. Ironically, although the idea that we should be most concerned for other's happiness is what is being sold, when that actually happens it is discounted. In other words, we who know God recognize that this idea of love that doesn't match the love of God will ultimately result in people's unhappiness. Out of love we warn people against it and are despised because we actually practice the kind of love they expected us to use to accept them. It is unloving, knowing the truth, to not try to assuage people from their self-destructive course. Yet they don't accept that kind of love although they peddle it. Truly, they desire to be accepted, but do not accept God, from whom comes the true love they imitate in mere shadows.

What about these 3 skeletons? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2972542/They-look-like-new-boy-band-s-world-s-THREE-WAY-sex-marriage-Gay-Thai-men-tie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html

I wonder if any of the major news networks in the states have carried these stories? I'm guessing not since it would confirm everything the the critics of gay marriage intoned about slippery slopes.

Well, yes, people have had sex with animals for eons and I'm sure many of those people have felt some attachment to them, as does the man in the horse story.

And people have tried to have "group" marriages from time to time--I don't see many long time married "trouples" for a reason. The dynamics just don't work out.

Pedophilia? Love and marriage requires two people of age, otherwise there's a crime involved. The brother-sister thing? Odd, hard to see that becoming popular. Are there really lots of siblings pining away for each other secretly, but the law keeps them apart? Don't think so.

In the meantime, our church just hosted two "regular" weddings last Saturday and we've got another one tomorrow. From my old, old, eye, I see marriage flourishing, not weakening.

RagTime: Pedophilia? Love and marriage requires two people of age, otherwise there's a crime involved.

We define legality. We define the legal age. Who's to say it will be a crime in the future? From the article:

Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations.

Even now there is no academic consensus on that fundamental question – as Goode found....

A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".

So hey, it's not harmful, the boys feel positively about the relationships when they consent, and young people have certainly consented in the past. Why not now? Love is love!

RagTime: The brother-sister thing? Odd, hard to see that becoming popular.

Well, according to the article, "Genetic Sexual Attraction is a phenomenon more prevalent than you'd think." It's not just love, it's science! (And saying, "It's hard to see that becoming popular" is not an argument against it.)

As this issue continues to be on the forefront, and I continue to look into it, I'm struck by the following. I think an analogy, to simplify, would be to show that our country regardless of why you feel it shouldn't have, picked singular courses for certain reasons. For instance, we have a constitutional form of government, as opposed to a parliament/dictatorship/monarchy etc. By today's reasoning, folks would say, "hey that's discriminatory. You need to let other folks sit at that table ya bigot." I think that's what we have with the redefinition of marriage. Our country picked the male/female monagamous model, (ref Murphy v Ramsey). But people want to open that up. When that happens, Christians, you are officially in the minority. Now, we were told we were "aliens" in this world. We will be under no illusion to not believe that any longer. Thats the rub-the good ol USA was judeo christian. But that wasn't good enough. And "christians" whether caught off guard by the culture, not knowing their own convictions, or letting those convictions and that relationship to the Lord get worn away over time, has us where we are today, (very weak!) Gracious this truth must get out!!

The argument of "Love is love" to me just seems to be more of a rally cry veiled as an argument. The actual idea that "love is love" really waters down the idea of love, even from an earthly perspective. I love relaxing on a beach, I love Yosemite, I love a painting, I love my parents, I love my wife, I love my brother, I love a good book, etc. Now, in all these statements, does love mean the same thing? If not, then whether all forms of love are equal is not the point that the want to make. Rather, all sexual love is the same perhaps? But that doesn't follow (shouldn't follow besides in the cases above) either. Does it then just turn the argument into "all love in a sexual relationship, between two consenting adults, is the same". It's not as catchy, but I suspect this is what they really want to say. (even though I have heard it is not about the sexual relationship either). Thoughts?

Brandon, again, I have to object to the use of "two" and "adults." It doesn't address those things at all (see my comments above).

Marital (eros) love is ordained by scripture. "The marriage bed is pure and undefiled", and, "they were naked and not ashamed". I came out of this culture due to sexual sin - my young girlfriend had just aborted my first progneny and the Word became very clear, "The wages of sin are death". I was scared by my numbness to emotion and my culpability in the murder. God's grace began to break the bonds and deliver me at that point.I still fell sexually but I still kept getting up and running to the Lord to repent; quicker and quicker. Ultimately I married my Christian wife (no other yoke fits! nor would I want that hell!) They I understood about the old fashioned values of virginity, etc With my wife there is no guilt. It's Gods model. All other is not ordained, ie without God's blessing. All other is rebellion and idolotry and immorality. "The body was not made for immorality".

Thanks Amy. The video you link to is a about the dumbest non-sequiter I've seen in a while.

Amy, I believe we agree on the issue. I was trying to flesh out the argument of "love is love" to make it more clear or levitate, and could not do so without getting confused myself. I do not believe that it is a legitimate argument either, but was playing a devil's advocate to see if I could reach a more coherent point. Again, I failed to do so, which affirms your point and mine. Based on my logic above, I could not make the "love is love" argument without adding a lot more qualifying points, which I believe defeats the purpose of the "love is love" point of view.

We do agree! I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, I was just trying to reiterate the point for everybody. :-)

And to think we were just talking about how opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with demeaning gay people or relationships. But here we are, getting right back to the, um, classics.

Word to the wise, if you don't want to be thought of as a raving mad bigot, don't mention homosexuality and pedophilia in the same sentence, paragraph, or blog post.

But I guess you just can't beat the classics, can you?

Phillip, I assume gay people are able to follow the argument even if same-sex marriage and these other things appear in the same post. This post isn't about gay people, it's about the inadequacy of the argument "love is love." "Love is love" legitimizes these other things as much as it does same-sex marriage (and it's being used that way by those promoting these other things). Therefore, you ought not use it when arguing for same-sex marriage if you don't want it applied beyond that. This whole post is based on the assumption that most people arguing for same-sex marriage (including gay people) would be against those other things.

It also points to the fact that there are other things to consider besides whether or not a person feels love. I would apply that point to the definition of marriage, but I didn't do that directly in the post.

If someone is going to say, "You used both words in the same post, you raving mad bigot" without thinking through what I said, there's really nothing I can do about that except to say that doesn't really speak well of the movement.

LOVE IS LOVE,

and

POWDER

IS POWDER

(Though one is confectioner's sugar and the other is arsenic trioxide).

The video makes for good theater, but on examination is easily shown for theatrics.

Using a fluoroscope to show two unidentifiable skeletons could also be used to prove:

-- a sleeping dog is a rock

-- a sleeping dog is a turtle

-- a bush is a small tree

-- any other illusion you may imagine.

@ brugulker

"Comparing that to beastiality is such a laughable straw man, it's hard to know how to respond with any sort of reasonable counter argument."


And yet you don't address either that, or the other examples given. (Because you know you can't.)

And what do you have against bestiality anyway? Why is this a laughable straw man? Such persons do exist. I'm sure their feelings and desires are just as strong as anyone else's. So who are you judge? What are you, a bigot?

@ RagTime

"Well, yes, people have had sex with animals for eons and I'm sure many of those people have felt some attachment to them, as does the man in the horse story."

Do you support it or don't you? Who are you to judge? Love is love!

"And people have tried to have "group" marriages from time to time--I don't see many long time married "trouples" for a reason. The dynamics just don't work out."

Do you support it or don't you? Who are you to judge? Love is love!

"Pedophilia? Love and marriage requires two people of age..."


Says who? You?


And how this bit about legality drives me nuts. What you're saying is that the ONLY reason you think pedophilia is wrong is because it's against the law? So if the law changed, you'd think it was okay?

I want to hear you say it.


"The brother-sister thing? Odd, hard to see that becoming popular."

Why's it odd? Do you support it or don't you? Who are you to judge? Love is love!

"Are there really lots of siblings pining away for each other secretly, but the law keeps them apart? Don't think so."

What does that have to do with it? There ARE indeed such couples. So, do you support it or don't you? Who are you to judge? Love is love!


"In the meantime, our church just hosted two "regular" weddings last Saturday and we've got another one tomorrow. From my old, old, eye, I see marriage flourishing, not weakening."

What does that have to do with anything else you've said?

Do you support those relationships or don't you?

The arguments against pedophilia are secular, not religious. For all the rules and regulations in the Old Testament regarding every trivial facet of human life, there is not one passage that condemns taking a minor child as a spouse. In fact, Moses had his armies take girls who were obviously virgins for their own use.

Consent is also a secular recommendation for marriage. Deuteronomy required rapists marry their victims, regardless of what the woman had to say about it.

@Mo:

"Do you support it or don't you? Who are you to judge? Love is love!"

As to animals, no, I don't support animal/human "marriage" and I think most of the world would agree with me. An animal has no ability to consent to a relationship, therefore it's inherently unequal.

As for "group marriage," it seems chaotic and odd, although I'm sure there are some reconstructionist LDS out there who beg to differ. If a group can make it work without abuse or harming others, I'm not going to step in their way. But I think these types of relationships wear out naturally.


"What you're saying is that the ONLY reason you think pedophilia is wrong is because it's against the law? So if the law changed, you'd think it was okay?"

No, I probably wasn't clear enough. Like I said about animals, children don't have the ability to make reasoned decisions, especially those who are per-pubescent. That's why it's against the law and not OK in our society.


"What does that have to do with it? There ARE indeed such couples. So, do you support it or don't you? Who are you to judge?"

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here. I'm sure there exist bro/sis couples, but I'm also pretty confident that their attachment is the result of some unusual psychological issues. Now it's not my cup of tea, but if these people are adults and not hurting others, it's hard for me to pound a sledge hammer on their door and separate them.


"What does that have to do with anything else you've said?"

What I was saying with the comment about weddings at my church was that in spite of these news reports of odd pairings and peccadilloes, and particularly in spite of rise of gay marriage, traditional male/female weddings seem to be doing just fine. I think too many Christians get caught up in the "weird news of the day" and think it's a sign that the end of the world is at hand. In the meantime, while they're out their protesting a man and his horse on their honeymoon, their forgetting the nuts and bolts issues of being a Christian: Love God, Love Each Other.

@ RagTime

"As to animals, no, I don't support animal/human "marriage" and I think most of the world would agree with me."

Why not? "Who are you to judge?", and all that.

" An animal has no ability to consent to a relationship, therefore it's inherently unequal."

Are you kidding me? THAT is the only reason such a relationship is wrong? So if an animal could consent, it would be okay? Good grief, how horrifying!


"As for "group marriage," it seems chaotic and odd, although I'm sure there are some reconstructionist LDS out there who beg to differ. If a group can make it work without abuse or harming others, I'm not going to step in their way."

All right, so you're for that.

"No, I probably wasn't clear enough. Like I said about animals, children don't have the ability to make reasoned decisions, especially those who are per-pubescent."

But laws are capable of being changed. So if the laws were changed, you'd think it's okay?


"Not sure exactly what you're getting at here."

I'm getting at the point that if you say "love is love!" for one group/combination, why wouldn't you say it for all others?

"I'm sure there exist bro/sis couples, but I'm also pretty confident that their attachment is the result of some unusual psychological issues."

Of course. But the same can be said for many other relationships, including same-sex. But you think one is okay and the others not. That is what I'm getting at. Why do you pick and choose?

The people who advocate for these other types of relationships, including human/animal and even human/inanimate objects use the same exact language that the same-sex couples do. Things like, "I'm born this way", "love is not illegal!", "love is love", "who are you to judge", "marriage equality" and all the rest. (I was going to say "reasoning", but it's not really reasoning. It's just emotional appeals.)


"and particularly in spite of rise of gay marriage, traditional male/female weddings seem to be doing just fine."

Once the meaning of marriage is changed from one man/one woman to (in all practicality) "whatever you want", marriage itself ends up meaning nothing at all.


"I think too many Christians get caught up in the "weird news of the day" and think it's a sign that the end of the world is at hand."

It's not just the weird news of the day. People's businesses and entire lives are being destroyed. Do you not SEE that? People are losing their jobs, being sent to brainwashing classes and being sued for not bowing to the bullying of the same-sex marriage crowd. Maybe you think that's fine, but many others do not.


"In the meantime, while they're out their protesting a man and his horse on their honeymoon, their forgetting the nuts and bolts issues of being a Christian: Love God, Love Each Other."

One does not preclude the other. One way to love God is by standing for His standards. One way to love others is by upholding standards that are good for society as a whole, Christian or not.

It's also interesting how you pick and choose one part of the Bible that you like, and dismiss the bits that you don't like. Can you tell me why you choose to do that?

Bradshaw,
Are you a practicing homosexual who thinks he's a Christian?
Why do you try to use scripture to condone pedophilia? What is wrong with you?
Matthew 18:6 NIV

6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Here's another:
Matthew 5:28

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

These are the standards true christians live by.

Be careful.

@Mo:

"Are you kidding me? THAT is the only reason such a relationship is wrong? So if an animal could consent, it would be okay? Good grief, how horrifying!"

I'm an animal that can consent. Presumably, it's at least sometimes not horrifying for someone to have sex with me. But that doesn't seem to have anything to do with either my genotype or my phenotype, except insofar as those things configure my brain such that I have the ability to conset. If I happened to resemble some species other than a human, but I was still me, what's wrong with me having sex?

Josh, I do not condone pedophilia in any way. It's a form of rape.

I'm simply pointing out that Scripture gives NO guidelines in terms of what an "appropriate" age is for sexual relations.

In my estimation, Scripture is *insufficiently* moral because of this, along with the fact that it doesn't seem to think consent is even a requirement for marriage.

The Lord provides a wife. It is holy and ordained.
I wonder why you equivocate on a scripture you obviously don't believe in and scoff at..

Proverbs 18:22 NIV
22 He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.

Proverbs 19:14 NIV
14 Houses and wealth are inherited from parents, but a prudent wife is from the LORD.

Matthew 19:6 KJV
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together , let not man put asunder .

The comments to this entry are closed.