A secular case against gay marriage

[Eufrosnia]

Interestingly, the case you cite as deviant behavior is heterosexual. If you were trying to disprove my statement, please note that I was being sarcastic. There is more harmful sexual activity of a heterosexual nature (rape, incest etc) than there is homosexual.

This is just bad reasoning. Rape and incest is certainly possible among homosexuals as well.

The honest truth is that there are many sexually deviant acts among human beings. Homosexuality is just one of them. To compare homosexual deviant acts vs heterosexual deviant acts in this sense makes zero sense. Homosexual acts themselves are all deviant. The difference in heterosexual activity is that there is a form of it that is non-deviant and worthy of encouragement by the state for the sake of common good i.e. MARRIAGE.

 

[rossum]

I bring it up, (just as I would have brought up rape myself), to highlight the point that merely “desiring something for personal happiness is not grounds for common good”.

Rape and paedophilia involve a non-consenting party. How does same sex marriage involve a non-consenting party?

Your argument is irrelevant to the real world situation, or would you propose rewriting the Declaration of Independence?.

rossum

 

[minkymurph]

I think you are still missing the key point here. The main point of premise 1is that it is a way of judging actions that are not required for common good.

I would strongly disagree there. I would say perhaps not ‘judging’ actions, but evaluating the effects and consequences of an action are an essential element in determining what is in the ‘common good.’

It seems intuitive to think that many people do subscribe to this way of judging acts that are not directly required for the common good. Many when faced with such an action tend to ask the question “What if everyone were to do it, is that good for the common good? If no, then do not allow it”.

In relation to some actions I agree. However, the reality is there are some actions not everyone will do.

In other words, its hard for someone to just say that the position is simply a religious belief.

I’m sure I understand this, can you expand?

To expand myself, not all religions believe monogamy is an essential element of marriage, and not all cultures subscribe to the Christian concept of marriage. In other cultures, monogamy is considered not to be in the interests of the common good. For example, in Tibet women can have, and are encouraged, to have more than one husband in order to control the population. Why they would want one I don’t know as I find one quite sufficient.

Sorry guys - feel free to jump on me for that comment as I appreciate many men would not want more than one wife.

Not everyone in liberal, Western democracies subscribes to Christian concepts of marriage - not to mention anything else. We can argue they should, but they don’t, and lots of practices Christians would not engage in for religious reasons are not illegal. How far do we go in determining how the state should legislate as that could amount to enforcing our religious views on others who do not share them? We were asked to preach the Gospel yes, but not force it on others by way of legislation.

No. Why? Because when we are to determine the action of homosexual activity, we only consider the effects of that particular act. Your mistake is that you are still thinking in terms of the probability of an actual world where all are gay etc. The argument does not hinge on that. It merely hinges on you accepting premise 1 as a method of judgement of acts which are not required for the common good.

I appreciate the argument does not hinge on that. However, how can we consider something that is unlikely to ever happen as a valid means of judgment in deciding the common good?

Usually, people will agree that extinction of the human race is definitely contrary to the common good (at least I hope they do).

I’m quite sure they would. I just don’t think many people would be of the opinion that recognizing same-sex marriage would be a stepping stone to the extinction of human race.

I do not know what you mean by the role model argument.

The role model argument, put simply though it could be expanded on a great deal more than I have the word length for here, is in the ideal scenario a child should be parented by two parents of opposite gender who are committed to each other and the children they have. Certainly there are single parents who very well, but more don’t and people who support gay marriage don’t disagree children benefit from being parented by a man and a woman, and don’t exactly disagree a marriage where there is little commitment is not as stable as one where there is.

Men and women parent in different ways, they bring different things to parenting and both are essential to a child’s development. In my part of the world, teaching is very much a female dominated profession. Men and women communicate in different ways and have different teaching styles. They pick resources, topics and manage discussion in different ways and as such, schools are crying out for male teachers because female domination is causing an imbalance. Many who support same-sex marriage don’t disagree with this because evidence supports it and it is not hypothetical or speculative.

I personally think premise 1 is very defensible.

I appreciate that, you are entitled to your opinion and whose to say your opinion is any less valid than any one else’s? However in my view, it is much easier to convince oneself one’s own arguments are defensible than convince others who don’t share your views it is. I think it’s great your coming on the forums and putting your arguments out there and thinking of them. On the down side I don’t think it would convince fence-sitter’s - but then I’m a bit of a cynic.

 

[RevDon]

This is just bad reasoning. Rape and incest is certainly possible among homosexuals as well.

The honest truth is that there are many sexually deviant acts among human beings. Homosexuality is just one of them. To compare homosexual deviant acts vs heterosexual deviant acts in this sense makes zero sense. Homosexual acts themselves are all deviant. The difference in heterosexual activity is that there is a form of it that is non-deviant and worthy of encouragement by the state for the sake of common good i.e. MARRIAGE.

So far we have agreement that there is deviant behavior in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
There is also agreement that marriage is a “good.”
You have failed to establish that homosexual acts are all deviant (unless by “deviant” you mean differing from the statistical norm).
You have also failed to establish that marriage of homosexuals is harmful to the general welfare.
This thread has brought forth numerous instances that establish that the good of society is enhanced by marriage between homosexuals and conversely, prohibition of marriage between homosexuals creates harm to the general society.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I would strongly disagree there. I would say perhaps not ‘judging’ actions, but evaluating the effects and consequences of an action are an essential element in determining what is in the ‘common good.’

I don’t think anyone is saying different. You and I only disagree on the resultant needing to be actual. I find it unreasonable to think of results needing to be actual for that would mean all prudential decisions are unreasonable.

But if any prudential reasons are reasonable, then it is perfectly alright to base ones judgement on the type of thought experiment premise 1 entails.

In relation to some actions I agree. However, the reality is there are some actions not everyone will do.

In reality, there is no action that one can guarantee that all will do. If we were merely going by “would everyone do it?” then we are simply looking at the psychological side of things on the probability that others will adopt the activity.

It is very common to go with what is possible rather than probable. Gay activity is something perfectly possible for anyone to adopt. That is why the thought experiment based determination is valid. If it were an action that no one else could do, then it will indeed be different.

I’m sure I understand this, can you expand?

To expand myself, not all religions believe monogamy is an essential element of marriage, and not all cultures subscribe to the Christian concept of marriage. In other cultures, monogamy is considered not to be in the interests of the common good. For example, in Tibet women can have, and are encouraged, to have more than one husband in order to control the population. Why they would want one I don’t know as I find one quite sufficient.

I am not sure if you present this as an objection but it is worth noting that your objection hinges on the idea that there is no objection against such marriage arrangements. One can say that such arrangements are contrary to the common good because they violate some other common premise that many can agree or defend.

For one, I would say that such marriages are unhealthy because a person cannot given themselves completely to another then i.e. woman has to give herself completely to two people. But of course, there will have to be much work done to get many to agree on that premise. Needless to say, since this is not entirely a problem here in the West, it is not an issue I have concentrated on.

It is more important to point out to you that my argument was first against homosexual activity rather than gay marriage. If you agree with the conclusion that homosexual activity should not be allowed, then the position on gay marriage follows. So it is a bit of a confusion for you (and many others here) to compare gay marriage vs. other types of marriage.

Not everyone in liberal, Western democracies subscribes to Christian concepts of marriage - not to mention anything else. We can argue they should, but they don’t, and lots of practices Christians would not engage in for religious reasons are not illegal. How far do we go in determining how the state should legislate as that could amount to enforcing our religious views on others who do not share them? We were asked to preach the Gospel yes, but not force it on others by way of legislation.

Assuming you are indeed Catholic, this question is rather trivial. The state must ideally enforce laws such that all Christian precepts pertaining to natural law are safeguarded.

What lots of people get wrong here is either they confuse natural law with church law or try and make arguments like “how does the church enforce laws against masturbation for an example?”.

The first is confusion. The answer to the second is that the state will enforce it in the public setting, hence reflecting natural law. But it cannot know what people do in private. Same with homosexual activity. The state can ban all public homosexual activity and its promotion. It just cannot and need not enforce it in the private bedrooms.

I appreciate the argument does not hinge on that. However, how can we consider something that is unlikely to ever happen as a valid means of judgment in deciding the common good?

Because we do not base the merit or demerit of an action purely based on consequences. That is consequentialism. Granted, there are those who subscribe to this position but it is not a clear cut and dry position. For an example, under consequentialism, the hiroshima bomb would actually be a good thing because it stopped the war.

It therefore must be the case that nature of actions are determined apriori to the actual consequences rather than posteriori. This does not mean we evaluate probabilities but that the nature of the act must be independent of the probabilities or actuality of the consequences of that specific instance of the act. One of the major problems of consequentialism is that we need to be able to evaluate all possible effects of specific instance of acts. That is impossible for a human being to do.

The premise 1 merely provides a way of evaluating actions in this way that is independent of specific instances of an act and their consequences by looking at a more easier model where consequences are much clearer (i.e. all practice the act). That is why it is more reasonable.

(continued)

 

[Eufrosnia]

(continued from above)

I’m quite sure they would. I just don’t think many people would be of the opinion that recognizing same-sex marriage would be a stepping stone to the extinction of human race.

They do not need to. All they need to do is acknowledge that

1. We can determine nature of actions by looking at the consequences of a thought experiment of everyone performing the same act
2. Homosexual activity if adopted by all, as in this thought experiment, indicates that it will lead to the extinction of the human race

Then the conclusion follows.

The role model argument, put simply though it could be expanded on a great deal more than I have the word length for here, is in the ideal scenario a child should be parented by two parents of opposite gender who are committed to each other and the children they have. Certainly there are single parents who very well, but more don’t and people who support gay marriage don’t disagree children benefit from being parented by a man and a woman, and don’t exactly disagree a marriage where there is little commitment is not as stable as one where there is.

Men and women parent in different ways, they bring different things to parenting and both are essential to a child’s development. In my part of the world, teaching is very much a female dominated profession. Men and women communicate in different ways and have different teaching styles. They pick resources, topics and manage discussion in different ways and as such, schools are crying out for male teachers because female domination is causing an imbalance. Many who support same-sex marriage don’t disagree with this because evidence supports it and it is not hypothetical or speculative.

I am glad that is the case in Tibet but in my experience, even heterosexuals here won’t agree with that. They see gender as malleable. Hence why now a person is allowed to choose if they are male or female even though they are clearly biologically otherwise.

I think some people still know what you said above in their hearts. But they also see gender malleability as a right and a freedom.

I appreciate that, you are entitled to your opinion and whose to say your opinion is any less valid than any one else’s? However in my view, it is much easier to convince oneself one’s own arguments are defensible than convince others who don’t share your views it is. I think it’s great your coming on the forums and putting your arguments out there and thinking of them. On the down side I don’t think it would convince fence-sitter’s - but then I’m a bit of a cynic.

No worries. I understand what you mean. I don’t really expect people to change their minds honestly. I just felt that it is an angle some could use in their argumentation since it gives a nice non-religious grounding to discuss over.

I also like it because it is not based on the need to empirically verify consequences. That to me is one of the weak points of the role model argument you present as well. Because many can find enough researchers here who will tell you that gender is not grounded in the biology. It may well be the case that if you were to review their studies, you will find them to be utterly bogus but it is another instance where empiricism has being misused.

Anyway, the main reasons I use this argument is because of its

1. independence from religious grounding
2. a common ground that many can agree on or be convinced to agree on
3. does not require or hinge on empirical evidence of actual consequences of specific instances of the activity

 

[Eufrosnia]

Rape and paedophilia involve a non-consenting party. How does same sex marriage involve a non-consenting party?

Your argument is irrelevant to the real world situation, or would you propose rewriting the Declaration of Independence?.

rossum

Rossum, please pay attention to what I am actually saying. I agree that consent is a different aspect. I am only pointing out the following:-

There exists at least one criterion upon which the right to “pursue ones happiness” must be denied i.e. consent. So the right to pursue happiness is not an absolute right.

What this means is that you cannot go around saying such a right is the basis for the common ground or asking “how can gay people be happy if they are not allowed to be gay?”.

It is clear that people must curb their desires according to what is right rather than aimlessly pursue them.

 

[Eufrosnia]

So far we have agreement that there is deviant behavior in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

Homosexual behavior is 100% deviant. Heterosexual behavior is only deviant in specific instances.

There is also agreement that marriage is a “good.”

Sure.

You have failed to establish that homosexual acts are all deviant (unless by “deviant” you mean differing from the statistical norm).

Premise 1 RevDon. PREMISE 1. Please re-read it again. The whole argument I presented shows that all homosexual activity is deviant.

You have also failed to establish that marriage of homosexuals is harmful to the general welfare.
This thread has brought forth numerous instances that establish that the good of society is enhanced by marriage between homosexuals and conversely, prohibition of marriage between homosexuals creates harm to the general society.

I honestly don’t know how you or anyone else can tell me the exact magnitude of the effects of a gay couple marrying in Toronto. Neither I nor you know that. What you and I both know is that if such activity were to be adopted by all, we have the extinction of the human race. What that means is that such behavior is MALADAPTIVE/ INFERIOR/ AGAINST THE COMMON GOOD. Honestly, take your pick.

 

[minkymurph]

Actually no. Perhaps you didn’t think about what I said. Please read the above. The point here is that in conceding that consent is required, you have enforced at least one condition upon which one may rightly deny certain people their “way of satisfying their personal happiness” or “being themselves”.

Eufrosnia -

Much as I hate to ‘nit pic’ can I refer you to this response you made at post #80.

You have quoted me above this response. I’m sure it’s a slip of the mouse or something but I didn’t actually post what you have quoted me as posting.

 

[minkymurph]

Assuming you are indeed Catholic, this question is rather trivial. The state must ideally enforce laws such that all Christian precepts pertaining to natural law are safeguarded.

What lots of people get wrong here is either they confuse natural law with church law or try and make arguments like “how does the church enforce laws against masturbation for an example?”.

Assuming I am Catholic? And your point is?

I thought you said this was a secular case and was not based on religion?

What you have posted sounds very much like a faith based argument. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but if you want to argue against same-sex marriage from a faith perspective then do that. If you try to disguise a faith based argument as a secular one people will see through it, and you discredit the argument.

Is the reason you think the role model argument is a weak one because you didn’t think of it?

I have to say I didn’t think of it either. I just happen to think it’s a better one than yours, and one people who support same-sex marriage don’t disagree with - even if only tacitly.

The premise 1 merely provides a way of evaluating actions in this way that is independent of specific instances of an act and their consequences by looking at a more easier model where consequences are much clearer (i.e. all practice the act). That is why it is more reasonable.

(continued)

If that’s what you want to believe you are entitled to your opinion. Personally I find other arguments more reasonable, and I am entitled to my opinion.

I would also like to add it if people do not accept your line of argument, telling them they are mistaken or asking them to re-read what you say is not going to convince them otherwise.

 

[RevDon]

Homosexual behavior is 100% deviant. Heterosexual behavior is only deviant in specific instances.

Sure.

Premise 1 RevDon. PREMISE 1. Please re-read it again. The whole argument I presented shows that all homosexual activity is deviant.

I honestly don’t know how you or anyone else can tell me the exact magnitude of the effects of a gay couple marrying in Toronto. Neither I nor you know that. What you and I both know is that if such activity were to be adopted by all, we have the extinction of the human race. What that means is that such behavior is MALADAPTIVE/ INFERIOR/ AGAINST THE COMMON GOOD. Honestly, take your pick.

Your argument hinges on that premise: that all homosexual behavior is deviant in a harmful, not statistical way. You haven’t substantiated that premise, and other posters have sufficiently provided evidence to the contrary. Your repetition of it does not establish it as truth.

Likewise, your argument for the proliferation of non-procreative sex is specious. Homosexuality is an inherent variation in human beings that is not spread as a preferential lifestyls. Hence, your argument on the basis of extermination of the species is without base.

 

[RevDon]

I honestly don’t know how you or anyone else can tell me the exact magnitude of the effects of a gay couple marrying in Toronto. Neither I nor you know that.

A gay couple marrying (and I am including all of the aspects of marriage, not just copulation) results in the formation of a household recognized by civil authorities for the sake of taxation, responsible medical decisions, the possibility of providing a home for children, the elimination of promiscuous sex that might lead to the spread of STDs, makes persons answerable to others on a daily basis for moral and economic decisions, provides psychological stability for partners.

This is the beginning of my list of how marriage benefits society in a secular way. When the institution of marriage is opened to homosexuals, the encouragement and structures of secular society are applicable as defining the relationship, and providing the means whereby the partners may live up to that definition (for example, partner’s health/psychiatric care).

Perhaps others may expand my listing.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Eufrosnia -

Much as I hate to ‘nit pic’ can I refer you to this response you made at post #80.

You have quoted me above this response. I’m sure it’s a slip of the mouse or something but I didn’t actually post what you have quoted me as posting.

Sorry about that. My mistake.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Assuming I am Catholic? And your point is?

I thought you said this was a secular case and was not based on religion?

What you have posted sounds very much like a faith based argument. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but if you want to argue against same-sex marriage from a faith perspective then do that. If you try to disguise a faith based argument as a secular one people will see through it, and you discredit the argument.

I think I misunderstood your question. I assumed you were asking from the perspective of faith. In other words, that you were asking if Catholics need to be concerned about legislating morality in the first place.

As far as the argument goes, I only assume that whichever is against the common good should be shunned or banned. I think it is quiet clear that none of premises appeal to any religion, yes?

Is the reason you think the role model argument is a weak one because you didn’t think of it?

I have to say I didn’t think of it either. I just happen to think it’s a better one than yours, and one people who support same-sex marriage don’t disagree with - even if only tacitly.

I just think it is weak because one has to accept that there are indeed gender roles. Considering the fact that people in the West are already starting to doubt such a premise, then it will also require you to first establish that truth against resistance.

This is not to say that the argument I presented does not require a common ground. In-fact, the common ground of my argument is that

— Given an activity X that is not required for the common good, one determines whether or not allow such an action based on the test of what result it would have on the common good if all were to adopt the activity X —

It is also assumed that everyone agrees that human extinction is detrimental to the common good but that I think is something all will accept.

But the above premise might be easier to convince to a person since people do already tend to think this way when personally deciding whether to do something.

If that’s what you want to believe you are entitled to your opinion. Personally I find other arguments more reasonable, and I am entitled to my opinion.

I would also like to add it if people do not accept your line of argument, telling them they are mistaken or asking them to re-read what you say is not going to convince them otherwise.

Of course. I only asked you and others to re-read because initially you were attacking a straw man. So were many others. Most assumed that the argument was based on the actual impact the legalization of the activity can have. So they would talk about the improbability of even everyone adopting the activity. But as I said many times, the argument deals with the hypothetical test.

Now there may well be good arguments one can lay against such hypothetical postulation but unfortunately that is not where nearly all of the discussion (including with you) has centered upon. So I feel that I was correct in asking you and others to re-read the argument more carefully.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Your argument hinges on that premise: that all homosexual behavior is deviant in a harmful, not statistical way. You haven’t substantiated that premise, and other posters have sufficiently provided evidence to the contrary. Your repetition of it does not establish it as truth.

Likewise, your argument for the proliferation of non-procreative sex is specious. Homosexuality is an inherent variation in human beings that is not spread as a preferential lifestyls. Hence, your argument on the basis of extermination of the species is without base.

I am not sure where in my argument that I ASSUMED a premise that “All homosexual activity is harmful”. There was only a conclusion that all homosexual activity was harmful. Now as anyone would tell you, if you want to disagree with the conclusion, you have to show which premises you disagree with. If you have no qualms with the premises, the conclusion just inevitably follows. Ok?

 

[Eufrosnia]

A gay couple marrying (and I am including all of the aspects of marriage, not just copulation) results in the formation of a household recognized by civil authorities for the sake of taxation, responsible medical decisions, the possibility of providing a home for children, the elimination of promiscuous sex that might lead to the spread of STDs, makes persons answerable to others on a daily basis for moral and economic decisions, provides psychological stability for partners.

This is the beginning of my list of how marriage benefits society in a secular way. When the institution of marriage is opened to homosexuals, the encouragement and structures of secular society are applicable as defining the relationship, and providing the means whereby the partners may live up to that definition (for example, partner’s health/psychiatric care).

Perhaps others may expand my listing.

It is worth pointing out that the argument is not, first and foremost, against gay marriage. The fact that gay marriage should be banned hinges on whether homosexual activity should be banned. The argument first and foremost addresses that issue.

Since homosexual activity is not required for the common good of society, one has to find a way to analyze whether the act should be allowed or disallowed. It turns out that if you accept the premises in my argument, then it follows that homosexual activity should indeed be banned.

The problem here is that without addressing the argument, you want to try and justify gay marriage. But to do so, you must provide a premise that I can accept. Your premise of “oh but it can do this much good”, is not really a valid argument since it may also do bad that you have not taken in to account. The bad result might indeed outweigh the good. That is why consequentialism that deals with the quantifying of ACTUAL impact of actions can be quiet useless.

So unless you have a reasons to disagree with the premises of my argument, the conclusions do follow. I am just baffled at this point why no one wants to discuss the premises but are rather caught up on either attacking a straw man or trying to present a new argument in favor of gay marriage.

 

[minkymurph]

As far as the argument goes, I only assume that whichever is against the common good should be shunned or banned. I think it is quiet clear that none of premises appeal to any religion, yes?

No - it depends very much on what one perceives as the common good. It also has to be asked who should decide what the common good is? Even in a situation where a qualified majority agree on what the common good is - which is rare - that does not in itself mean the practice should be shunned or banned. It may need to be regulated or restricted, but not necessarily shunned or banned. I would also say ‘shunned’ suggest social control rather than state or legal control. There are many acts society may shun, but the legal system does not punish persons who engage in that act, and there are reasons for that.

I just think it is weak because one has to accept that there are indeed gender roles. Considering the fact that people in the West are already starting to doubt such a premise, then it will also require you to first establish that truth against resistance.

I disagree. One does not have to accept there are gender roles, and one does not have to accept it would be contrary to the common good to reject the notion there are gender roles. One is required to establish truth that there are gender roles if one’s objective is to convince others that there are gender roles - yes. However, many conflicting opinions exist in relation to gender roles. In other words, the difficulty I see in your line of argument is the presumption others will agree. I say this because on occasion you state others will agree with what you say. In my view, you should, in the first instance, assume they will not as a persuasive argument is one that assumes what they state will be refuted and challenged, and is constructed accordingly.

It is also assumed that everyone agrees that human extinction is detrimental to the common good but that I think is something all will accept.

In principle yes, many people would say human extinction is detrimental to the common good. However, I would also say you would have difficulty convincing many people not legalizing gay marriage is justified on the ground of preservation of the human race. Is that what your argument is?

But the above premise might be easier to convince to a person since people do already tend to think this way when personally deciding whether to do something.

Can you clarify? What way do people already tend to think when personally deciding whether or not to do something?

Of course. I only asked you and others to re-read because initially you were attacking a straw man. So were many others. Most assumed that the argument was based on the actual impact the legalization of the activity can have. So they would talk about the improbability of even everyone adopting the activity. But as I said many times, the argument deals with the hypothetical test.

Can you clarify what in your view is the ‘straw man’ argument?

Perhaps you have a point in that I don’t understand your line of reasoning. I thought your argument directly related to the impact legalization of the activity in question - same sex marriage - would have on society. As I understand it, you are arguing against it on the premise it would be detrimental to the common good because if everyone did it, it would lead to the extinction of the human race. As such, it should be shunned or banned. Have I misunderstood?

What I am saying is in my opinion, people who disagree with same sex marriage probably would except your argument. However, in my view people who are sitting on the fence will find it unconvincing.

Now there may well be good arguments one can lay against such hypothetical postulation but unfortunately that is not where nearly all of the discussion (including with you) has centered upon. So I feel that I was correct in asking you and others to re-read the argument more carefully.

I will be the first to say there are occasions when posters draw interpretations in relation to what another poster has said and it is obvious it wasn’t what they meant. However, the reason I said what I did was not due to the fact I thought you were incorrect in requesting I and other posters re-read what you wrote, but because I find statements to that effect somewhat patronizing. I am not saying that was your intention. The reason I find it somewhat patronizing is it infers fault lies with other poster’s understanding rather the actual argument or the manner in which it has been articulated, and the latter may be the case. Just because someone finds your argument unconvincing does not mean they have not understood it.

 

[RevDon]

It is worth pointing out that the argument is not, first and foremost, against gay marriage. The fact that gay marriage should be banned hinges on whether homosexual activity should be banned. The argument first and foremost addresses that issue.

Since homosexual activity is not required for the common good of society, one has to find a way to analyze whether the act should be allowed or disallowed. It turns out that if you accept the premises in my argument, then it follows that homosexual activity should indeed be banned.

The problem here is that without addressing the argument, you want to try and justify gay marriage. But to do so, you must provide a premise that I can accept. Your premise of “oh but it can do this much good”, is not really a valid argument since it may also do bad that you have not taken in to account. The bad result might indeed outweigh the good. That is why consequentialism that deals with the quantifying of ACTUAL impact of actions can be quiet useless.

So unless you have a reasons to disagree with the premises of my argument, the conclusions do follow. I am just baffled at this point why no one wants to discuss the premises but are rather caught up on either attacking a straw man or trying to present a new argument in favor of gay marriage.

I believe I have posted a considerable list of goods for individuals and for society.
I ask you to post a list of harms to society if that is your contention.

 

[RevDon]

History is littered with the wreckage of those who thought they knew how to “update the handbook”. The Church has articulated its teaching in various ways throughout the centuries, just as textbooks are continually updated. What doesn’t change is the teaching itself. 1+1 is always 2, and homosexual acts are always against nature.

My point is that the APA - the first national body to remove homosexuality as a diagnosis from its central text - made its decision based primarily on political pressure from gay protestors at the 1973 conference and used Kinsey’s “study” and its 1-in-10 result as a scientific fig leaf. The decision was based on their desire to be seen as “keeping with the times” - a modern version of “a gentleman’s hands are always clean”.

It seems to me that the nature argument is precisely where the issue focuses.
If you mean, all creatures that can engage in sex do it in a heterosexual way, therefore nature dictates that only heterosexual sexual activity is “natural,” then two arguments against this may be made

1. There is a large body of scientific observation for homosexual activity in the animal world.
2. Human beings have a mental capacity quite distinct from the animal world.

If you mean that the percentage of human beings who are homosexual is outweighed by the percentage who are heterosexual, then that is probably true. If by “natural” you mean what most people do, then the argument would be correct. The problem with this is that there are a great many minority behaviors among human beings that would be labeled unnatural by this definition. We do not ban or otherwise sanction those or label them as disordered or evil or sinful.

 

[minkymurph]

Since homosexual activity is not required for the common good of society, one has to find a way to analyze whether the act should be allowed or disallowed. It turns out that if you accept the premises in my argument, then it follows that homosexual activity should indeed be banned.

If an act or practice is not required for the common good, that in itself does not mean it should be banned. In my view, one should consider whether an act or practice would be detriemental to the common good and to what extent.

There are many acts and practices that are not required for the common good that are perfectly harmless and as such, it doesn’t matter whether anyone engages in them or not. It can also be argued that there are certain acts and practices that can be categorized as not in the common good, yet there exist valid reasons for not banning them but rather restrict, control or discourage them.

One also needs to consider if banning an act or practice would be detrimental to individuals. It is possible an act that could be categorized as contrary to the common good may be beneficial to an individual in certain circumstances.

The argument acts that are not necessary for the common good should be banned - if that is in effect what you are asserting - in my view would not stand up under scrutiny. An argument that hinges on certain acts are detrimental to both the common good and the good of individuals, and as such should be restricted has greater potential in terms of being universally accepted.