Series page: Problem of morality in video games

A continuing series about morality in video games:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Series page: Collective Guilt

An unfinished series on musing about collective guilt

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Series Page: On the subject of history

On historical perspectives

History: Part 1

History: Part 2

History: Part 3

History: Part 4

History: Part 5

History: Part 6

History: Part 7

History: Part 8

History: Part 9

History: Part 10

Series Page: Objective Morality

A series on common misconceptions about objective morality:

What is objective morality?

Misconception 1: Everyone would agree what is moral

Misconception 2 - Subjectivity has no role

Misconception 3 - Objective morality is not knowable

Series page: Why we need Aristotle and Aquinas

A collection of my posts regarding the need for the rediscovery of A-T metaphysics:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The fight for traditional marraige: The bad war

Timothy Dalrymple writes how the pro-life fight is analogous to WWII while the fight for traditional marriage is like Vietnam.  I think at the very least one who stands for traditional marriage gets far more heat nowadays than those who stand for the unborn. 

It is true that it is far easier to argue about abortion because the dimensions of the argument are much smaller.  There is at the end of the day only one point in contention.  Is the fetus a human being?  Both sides agree (mostly) that murder is wrong in all circumstances.  Also agreed upon is that humans have these things called "rights" and foremost is the right not to be killed.

Gay "marriage" is a far trickier debate to get into for a number of reasons.  Marriage itself and how one conceives it tells a lot about the arguer's world viewpoint.  Major assumptions are made and the moral and philosophical frameworks that support the arguments are often unstated and misunderstood by both sides.  To argue about gay "marriage" is more often than not a futile enterprise unless both sides work to define the frameworks from which the views come from.

Major points must be discussed including but not limited to:

• The relationship between being and actions
• The nature of the male/female distinction
• The nature and purpose of sexual relations
• The nature of the family
• The nature of marriage itself
• The relationship between morality and law

Without even this basic discussion arguments for/against same sex "marriage" goes off the rails in a hurry.  Both sides misunderstand each other and in our polarized culture assume the worst of motives.  The problem ultimately lies in the fact that the frameworks between the arguers are vastly different and as such they talk past each other.

Over the next few posts of so I will sketch out the various points above and how they pertain to gay "marriage".  It is vital that these points are discussed if any understanding between the two (multi) sides can be met.

But the above shows why the fight for actual marriage against the fiction of gay "marriage" is so difficult.  It is far tougher to argue with an opponent when the frameworks the two sides operate from differ vastly.

• Addendum: The damage that marriage has endured so far