An Unjust Law: Plato, Aristotle and Same Sex Marriage

[Abba]

Please note: This thread is for common folks like myself to discuss this topic. If you wish to get into a heavy duty systematic analysis and present your thoughts as if in a foreign language one needs to decipher, feel free to start another thread on the topic. Keep It Simply Stupid. :kiss4you:

I was just thinking that based on Plato’s most mature work; The Republic, Same Sex Marriage is an unjust law. I think if Plato were alive today he would say it is an unjust law. I found this article on Plato and Aristotle on the topic of family -
Plato and Aristotle on the Family and the Polis
John Hittinger
The University of St. Thomas, Houston
anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/spring%202013/Hittinger,%20The%20family%20and%20the%20polis.pdf Now, I have not read it, I just read the first couple of paragraph but it is evident the author would disagree with my position. However, I think it is because he is focusing on the understanding of Plato in one particular area and not his general comprehension of the virtues, society and the individual. I am going to read the whole article…

What the author is not appreciating is the fact that Plato considered a law to be just - if it is good for the society. Well, SSM is not good for society. If left unattended it can spread like wild fire and in the world of ‘ideas and imagination’ could end the existence of humanity. In other words, a law, needs to be good for society to be a just law and SSM is not good because it places humanity in danger of extinction if left unattended.

More on Aristotle’s position later…

What sayest thou?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is so highly improbable that the race would become extinct due to same-sex marriage that I think this does not resonate with me at all. Might as well make a law against the single life on the grounds that the human race would become extinct if the single life were universally practiced.

A better law would be to prohibit same-sex marriage on the ground of its lunacy. I have said in this and other threads that lunatic arrangements should not be protected or licensed by law, even if they cannot be prevented.

50 years ago any man or woman who wanted to marry someone of his own sex would have been thought to be joking or out of his/her head. The passage of time alone and the shameless spread of homosexuality can in no way invalidate that judgment.

Apparently some Catholic prelates think same-sex marriage is a just law since they say the Catholic Church will “follow what the law says,” whatever that means.

wtop.com/dc/2015/07/cardinal-wuerl-sex-marriage-ruling-law-land/

 

[Pallas_Athene]

50 years ago any man or woman who wanted to marry someone of his own sex would have been thought to be joking or out of his/her head.

At the same time mixed-race couples were not allowed to marry, and when a child was born to mixed couple, that child was forcefully taken away from the parents - here in the good ol’ US of A. The supreme court struck down the laws against mixed-race marriages in 1967, not even 50 years ago. It was a good decision then, and this was a good decision now.

 

[QuestLove]

If left unattended it can spread like wild fire and in the world of ‘ideas and imagination’ could end the existence of humanity.

When you say spreading, do you mean heterosexuals will become homosexuals?

 

[Murmurs]

Please note: This thread is for common folks like myself to discuss this topic. If you wish to get into a heavy duty systematic analysis and present your thoughts as if in a foreign language one needs to decipher, feel free to start another thread on the topic. Keep It Simply Stupid. :kiss4you:

I was just thinking that based on Plato’s most mature work; The Republic, Same Sex Marriage is an unjust law. I think if Plato were alive today he would say it is an unjust law. I found this article on Plato and Aristotle on the topic of family -
Plato and Aristotle on the Family and the Polis
John Hittinger
The University of St. Thomas, Houston
anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/spring%202013/Hittinger,%20The%20family%20and%20the%20polis.pdf Now, I have not read it, I just read the first couple of paragraph but it is evident the author would disagree with my position. However, I think it is because he is focusing on the understanding of Plato in one particular area and not his general comprehension of the virtues, society and the individual. I am going to read the whole article…

What the author is not appreciating is the fact that Plato considered a law to be just - if it is good for the society. Well, SSM is not good for society. If left unattended it can spread like wild fire and in the world of ‘ideas and imagination’ could end the existence of humanity. In other words, a law, needs to be good for society to be a just law and SSM is not good because it places humanity in danger of extinction if left unattended.

More on Aristotle’s position later…

What sayest thou?

I can’t see a logical argument for it being an unjust law:

1. Same-sex marriage provides great benefit (emotional and material, if the state gives tax breaks etc to married couples) to those homosexual couples wanting to get married, and not in any way at the expense of either gay people not wanting/able to marry, or the rest of the population. (“We can make some people’s lives better without hurting our own”). We and others might believe it to be sinful, but it doesn’t actually hurt anyone. So far from being unjust, it is clearly beneficial to those it benefits, and of no impact to everyone else.
2. The proportion of homosexual people is fairly small (surveys differ but between about 1.6% to 6%, generally). Even if all of these people married (which won’t happen because some will choose not to, while some are not in such a happy position relationship-wise), the lack of offspring is not going to cause human extinction.
3. In the 21st century (at least in the West) where it is entirely, happily, acceptable to be homosexual, gay people are fairly unlikely to marry and stay “in the closet” anyway; therefore not contributing to the “extinction” danger you identity further - they’d not marry otherwise anyway, and plenty of gay couples in fact adopt or have children via IVF (again, we might say the latter is wrong because of how it relates to the discarding of fertilised eggs, but it doesn’t actually hurt /us/).

In sum, a law allowing for SSM cannot be unjust. I think it would be unfounded to say that homosexual relationships (which happen regardless of marriage laws) hurt the rest of society, regardless of whether we think activities within those relationships to be sinful or not.

Moreover, if you read The Republic, you get the impression that Plato believes strongly in equality (to be fair he is talking about women and their being Guardians of the city, but the point is to be more broadly taken. For Plato, every soul - male and female (straight and gay) is equal in its design and origin and therefore deserving of the same treatment, rights and responsibilities; hence women can be Guardians, hence a gay couple can marry. To be sure Plato, Aristotle, and all Greeks of their era believed in hierarchy in political and social structures, but I can’t see anyone making a coherent argument that even if we follow Ancient Greek precepts exactly they would point towards a sensible reason for denying marriage equality (the Greeks were not exactly averse to homosexual activity anyway, though that’s a whole different kettle of beans).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

At the same time mixed-race couples were not allowed to marry, and when a child was born to mixed couple, that child was forcefully taken away from the parents - here in the good ol’ US of A. The supreme court struck down the laws against mixed-race marriages in 1967, not even 50 years ago. It was a good decision then, and this was a good decision now.

I agree that it was a good decision. The law was a hateful one that went against reason, much as the Founders counting slaves as less than human.

But there is no reason behind same-sex marriage. Mixed race marriages can produce children. Same-sex marriage cannot. You can try to play silly-putty with morality, but in the end it’s still silly-putty.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I agree that it was a good decision. The law was a hateful one that went against reason, much as the Founders counting slaves as less than human.

Based upon the Bible, don’t forget.

But there is no reason behind same-sex marriage. Mixed race marriages can produce children. Same-sex marriage cannot. You can try to play silly-putty with morality, but in the end it’s still silly-putty.

Sure… but producing children, or the ability to produce children, or the desire to produce children, or the openness to produce children is not a prerequisite to have a marriage. Children can be produced out of wedlock, and there are infertile people who are married, but unable to produce children. At best there is a weak stochastic relationship between marriage and procreation - which is weak, because it is irrelevant.

 

[josh987654321]

If left unattended it can spread like wild fire and in the world of ‘ideas and imagination’ could end the existence of humanity. In other words, a law, needs to be good for society to be a just law and SSM is not good because it places humanity in danger of extinction if left unattended.

What sayest thou?

I believe SSM is damaging for society and that it is an unjust law, but not for the reasons you have said and I believe the part I have quoted from you is fallicious reasoning. I am certain humanity will not be in the least danger of extinction due to homosexuality, as heterosexuals will not cease to be heterosexual, nor will everyone become homosexual.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Based upon the Bible, don’t forget.

This is so completely false and has been beaten to death in my opinion, it irks me that people are still buying into these fallicious arguments from the New Ateists. Oh well, Christ was also accused of all this sort of stuff when he was brought before the High Counsel in their effort to put him to death.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

The other thing that I really just don’t understand, is for the Atheist to champion ‘reason’ and ‘intellect’ and then turn around and deny that a man and a woman are uniquely designed for one another. However one slices this whole same sex marriage thing, to argue ‘equality’ here is just completely the opposite of ‘intelligence’ and ‘reason’ in my view. As one quick scientific study of our sexual anatomy reveals that a man and a woman’s sexual organs are so clearly designed for one another.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The other thing that I really just don’t understand, is for the Atheist to champion ‘reason’ and ‘intellect’ and then turn around and deny that a man and a woman are uniquely designed for one another.

There is no reason to assume any “design”. Of course the sexual organs of the males and females evolved to make procreation possible - that is beyond questioning. But from that it DOES NOT follow that every instance of using those organs SHOULD be devoted to procreation. You could argue that the legs are “designed” for getting us from one place to different one, and then argue that dancing is an abomination, since the dance does not bring us from here to somewhere else.

However one slices this whole same sex marriage thing, to argue ‘equality’ here is just completely the opposite of ‘intelligence’ and ‘reason’ in my view. As one quick scientific study of our sexual anatomy reveals that a man and a woman’s sexual organs are so clearly designed for one another.

A quick study of the sexual organs ALSO reveals that the pleasure part is independent from the procreation part. One can evoke the pleasure aspect without invoking the procreation aspect - and there is nothing irrational or unreasonable about it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Would a predominantly Protestant society be better off if it did not allow the open practice of the Catholic faith? Would it be good for a Protestant society to prevent intermarriage between Protestants and Catholics for fear that such unions would sway Protestant participants from the majority faith? Would a Protestant society, in order to maintain public harmony, do good allowing private business great leeway in how it treats its Catholic employees and patrons?

Without opening a large can of worms, there are a great many societies that have passed what they feel are good laws and disallowed what they feel are bad laws based on the misguided notion of what is “good” for that society. Often this is in the form of maintaining a status quo that shows great favoritism for one group over another despite the capability of both groups to maintain a harmonious society without such favoritism.

 

[josh987654321]

There is no reason to assume any “design”.

For me personally, I believe there is ‘every’ reason to derive design and that the mathematically precise laws of nature and the sciences give tremendous proof of this.

Of course the sexual organs of the males and females evolved to make procreation possible - that is beyond questioning.

Due to mortality, May I ask how one ‘evolves’ without procreation?

But from that it DOES NOT follow that every instance of using those organs SHOULD be devoted to procreation. You could argue that the legs are “designed” for getting us from one place to different one, and then argue that dancing is an abomination, since the dance does not bring us from here to somewhere else.

looking at it from your perspective, sure; and I believe it would be ludicrous to call ‘dancing’ ‘walking’ for equality sake and thus call those who differentiated between the two ‘bigots’ and ‘haters’ etc.

A quick study of the sexual organs ALSO reveals that the pleasure part is independent from the procreation part. One can evoke the pleasure aspect without invoking the procreation aspect - and there is nothing irrational or unreasonable about it.

I believe all one has to do is look at all of the sexual perversions, infidelity and obsessions with sexuality to know that there is something very irrational and unreasonable about the ‘pleasure’ aspect of sexuality.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[NovusFidem]

Sure… but producing children, or the ability to produce children, or the desire to produce children, or the openness to produce children is not a prerequisite to have a marriage.

Actually, it is. That is the fundamental and original meaning/the reason for marriage: children.

As your name suggests, I believe you are interested in Greek mythology and society. The Ancient Greeks, the men in that society, considered homosexual relationships something good. Plato considered love as something that was only between men. Homosexual relationships were common, usually between an older man and a younger one (see “pederasty” in wikipedia).

And yet, the Ancient Greeks still considered marriage as something between man and woman. The reason? Kids.

In every culture, marriage is an institution that binds a man and a woman (or 2 men and 1 women, 1 man and 5 women, etc., but always with one from each gender) in an agreement to have and raise children together. People married for many reasons: to maintain lands and properties in one family line, to unite nations, to end wars - but the one reason all of this was possible, was because of children born from these unions.

Children can be produced out of wedlock, and there are infertile people who are married, but unable to produce children. At best there is a weak stochastic relationship between marriage and procreation - which is weak, because it is irrelevant.

Which brings me to the OP question. I don’t see homosexuality as such a big threat. The only reason they voted for it is because** marriage already lost its true MEANING**. With divorce, contraception and people having relations out of wedlock, people think that family is whoever you want it to be, and that marriage is just “the next step” in a relationship. (because, really: what changes from today’s dating, and marriage with contraception?)

Edit: and just to add some light. The Catholic faith considers a marriage invalid (read= marriage never happened) if one of the two is impotent. While fertility doesn’t need to be proven (this is a religion that considers that St. Zachary and St. Elizabeth were able to conceive, even though St. Elizabeth was years beyond child-bearing age), if a person cannot perform, and thus bear no children, then they should not marry.

It may sound harsh, but it is like saying: “if you are not a child, then you should not use the children’s toys at the park, since they were made for children to use” <-> “If you can not or are not willing to have children, then you should not marry, as marriage is for those who can and are willing to have children”.

 

[josh987654321]

.

I believe that analogy is fallicious for the very reason that same sex marriage has nothing to do with legalising or criminalising homosexual unions.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I believe that analogy is fallicious for the very reason that same sex marriage has nothing to do with legalising or criminalising homosexual unions.

I’m not understanding, and I’m hoping you can go into more detail as why you think my analogy doesn’t work.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

For those who think the law is “unjust,” against whom exactly is it unjust?

 

[Abba]

There is no reason to assume any “design”. Of course the sexual organs of the males and females evolved to make procreation possible - that is beyond questioning. But from that it DOES NOT follow that every instance of using those organs SHOULD be devoted to procreation. You could argue that the legs are “designed” for getting us from one place to different one, and then argue that dancing is an abomination, since the dance does not bring us from here to somewhere else.

A quick study of the sexual organs ALSO reveals that the pleasure part is independent from the procreation part. One can evoke the pleasure aspect without invoking the procreation aspect - and there is nothing irrational or unreasonable about it.

We interrupt this discussion for a ‘non-philosophical’ message:

Talk about truth being turned upside down. What diabolical times we are living in. Saint Michael fight your fight.

 

[Abba]

For those who think the law is “unjust,” against whom exactly is it unjust?

The correct answer is one that you may not accept or somehow it needs to be presented through some line of rational and logical thinking that will arrive at the correct answer and in that manner you will accept it. That’s the challenge not the ignorance of the answer.

What is the answer? God and mankind.

First off, I am attempting to establish that according to Plato (and Aristotle) the SSM law is unjust because it is not good for mankind/society. I proposed that it is not good because in our wildest imaginings it could be the case that it could spread like wild fire and then what? We will keep the human race going with test tube babies? But, there are many reasons why the law is not good and we will learn more ways in which the law is not good as time goes by and we start dealings with the problems which will arise as a consequence.

Certainly, the law is unjust, it’s right on the Republic, it’s almost right at the beginning… Socrates establishes that it must be just for all and always. Well, is it just for the innocent infants who will be given up for adoption to a same sex couple? I think not. They are human beings and have a right to have a male father and a female mother or some position derived from the natural course of existence…

If I can establish that the law is not good for mankind, then, it can be said that according to Plato the law is not good and is an unjust law.

The greatest Good is God and He created the heavens and the earth and the human beings, animals and birds and fishes etc… it’s unjust to disrupt a good creation and in so doing we offend God and that is not good and we harm humanity and that is not good.

 

[oldcelt]

Please note: This thread is for common folks like myself to discuss this topic. If you wish to get into a heavy duty systematic analysis and present your thoughts as if in a foreign language one needs to decipher, feel free to start another thread on the topic. Keep It Simply Stupid. :kiss4you:

I was just thinking that based on Plato’s most mature work; The Republic, Same Sex Marriage is an unjust law. I think if Plato were alive today he would say it is an unjust law. I found this article on Plato and Aristotle on the topic of family -
Plato and Aristotle on the Family and the Polis
John Hittinger
The University of St. Thomas, Houston
anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/spring%202013/Hittinger,%20The%20family%20and%20the%20polis.pdf Now, I have not read it, I just read the first couple of paragraph but it is evident the author would disagree with my position. However, I think it is because he is focusing on the understanding of Plato in one particular area and not his general comprehension of the virtues, society and the individual. I am going to read the whole article…

What the author is not appreciating is the fact that Plato considered a law to be just - if it is good for the society. Well, SSM is not good for society. If left unattended it can spread like wild fire and in the world of ‘ideas and imagination’ could end the existence of humanity. In other words, a law, needs to be good for society to be a just law and SSM is not good because it places humanity in danger of extinction if left unattended.

More on Aristotle’s position later…

What sayest thou?

Keep reading…try the Phaedo…direct homosexual marriage was uncommon or unknown in that era…however, homosexual behavior was quite open. Does that justify anything? No…but we continue to evolve.
This is from a heterosexual.
John