An Unjust Law: Plato, Aristotle and Same Sex Marriage

[Rhubarb]

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.

I didn’t want to wade into this because clearly I start with different assumptions. There’s a problem with your argument though. Namely, that it’s based on a conditional. “If SSM is bad for society, then it is unjust.” Now, in order to use that conditional we need to run across the antecedent that SSM is bad for society.

Now I know a couple of posters have circled the point, but to use this as your argument you need to say what ‘bad for society’ actually and for really entails. This might sound like nit-picking, but it’s a fairly important part of what you’re trying to give. I don’t think anyone would argue that a law is unjust if it’s bad for society. What ‘bad’ is will be contentious though.

Secondly, I don’t know if the statistics are available for what the impact of SSM will be. The studies seem to show that same-sex couples are just as capable and raise children just as well as opposite-sex couples. I know there are some that show the opposite. I think this means that more work needs to be done. I don’t see society dying in a gay firestorm though.

There is another more flippant problem I can think of. That is essentially, so what? Who cares what Plato and Aristotle thought about just laws. Plato envisioned a near-fascist state, and Socrates was a fan of Sparta’s politics. Honestly, I didn’t read the Politics, so I can’t comment on Aristotle. But we don’t think about Forms, or humors, or aether and quintessence anymore. It’s probably not very productive, but I think a legitimate answer to Plato and Aristotle calling SSM unjust is to say “why should we care what they think about it?”

 

[Abba]

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.

Hello Josh,

Thank you for your contributions. Well, I cannot have the certainty that you have. I think there are different causes for homosexuality and one of them is pure perversion which can spread like wild fire.

I find an extraordinary similarity in the two stories of the OT of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis Chapter 19 biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&search=Genesis%2019 ) and the Benjamites (Judges Chapter 19 biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV&search=Judges%2019 ). Note, in both stories we are NOT told it was just some bad guys from town, but in the first ‘ALL THE MEN’ and in the second ‘SOME - OF THE WICKED MEN’ as in they were all wicked.

Then there is the island of Lesbo. I am not quite sure what the situation was there and the extent of the homosexuality of the women, I will have to look it up.

 

[josh987654321]

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

Sure.

I said that same sex marriage doesn’t legalise or criminalise a homosexual union because I believe you were trying to insinuate that we are somehow oppressing those who hold a different view to us by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Futhermore, I believe your analogy is fallicious because ‘relativism’ right from the get go, is doomed for failure.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Abba]

There is another more flippant problem I can think of. That is essentially, so what? Who cares what Plato and Aristotle thought about just laws. Plato envisioned a near-fascist state, and Socrates was a fan of Sparta’s politics. Honestly, I didn’t read the Politics, so I can’t comment on Aristotle. But we don’t think about Forms, or humors, or aether and quintessence anymore. It’s probably not very productive, but I think a legitimate answer to Plato and Aristotle calling SSM unjust is to say “why should we care what they think about it?”

I would like to establish that, indeed, it is the case, that according to Plato’s theories SSM is an Unjust Law. The common person may no longer be commonly discussing Plato’s theory of ‘Forms’ in the public squares, but it is as Alfred North Whitehead said, “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato” (Process and Reality, p. 39, Free Press, 1979). Plato paved the way for Christianity and our way of thinking. His pupil Aristotle left his own big foot prints and this thanks to the training he received from Plato.

Plato is a big fish, and is much appreciated even today.

 

[MarcoPolo]

we continue to evolve.

Toward what?

Speaking of evolution, do you subscribe to either of the following two concepts:

1. 
   *]Children raised by gay “parents” fare just as well in life as children raised by their mother and father (with regard to e.g. academics, mental health, avoidance of addictions, avoidance of crime, stability of marriage).
   *]A force of evolution is survival of the fittest.

 

[josh987654321]

The studies seem to show that same-sex couples are just as capable and raise children just as well as opposite-sex couples.

Except that ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ is removed from a childs life. Sometimes it happens that a child is left without their mother or father, but to intentionally set it up like that is just so very wrong in my view.

I also believe it is very wrong to argue that a childs biological parents don’t matter or are irrelevant in order to maintain the facade of equality when it comes to same sex marriage and family.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Rhubarb]

Except that ‘mum’ or ‘dad’ is removed from a childs life. Sometimes it happens that a child is left without their mother or father, but to intentionally set it up like that is just so very wrong in my view.

I also believe it is very wrong to argue that a childs biological parents don’t matter or are irrelevant in order to maintain the facade of equality when it comes to same sex marriage and family.

This sounds fair I suppose, just at first blush. The facts of the matter still need to be analyzed. And equality is part of the equation. We always have to balance that when we’re dealing with aspects of distributive justice.

It’s a good sentiment to say that every child deserves a mother and father. Goodness knows I wish my folks stayed together. But it’s the task of sociologists to figure out what the costs (and potential benefits) of various family makeups. Once we have the date, we can consider the question better.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

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.

According to the old saying: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is chastity”. As long as the adults who participate in their sexual games all consent to it there is no infidelity involved. Obsession of any kind is a problem, but fortunately people cannot “overdo” sex, for very obvious reasons. Their body will simply refuse to cooperate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Absolutely false. The primary purpose of marriage is to produce a family. Marriage certifies the relationship of husband to wife and parents to children. It signals the desire to create a family environment conducive to both partners and offspring. Never before in the history of the world was it imagined that men should marry men, and women should marry women. This is a dangerously immoral situation the Supreme Court has certified and the floodgates to other dangerously immoral situations being condoned has been opened, because how can homosexuals or heterosexual now object to incestuous marriage or polygamy. All the borders of institutionalized sexual morality have been erased by this one decision.

The Supreme Court has certified not only sexual lunacy, but its own lunacy as well.

The shame is that two Catholics on the Court sided with the three Jews to make a majority of one. As Jefferson feared, a monarchy of one has sneaked into the constitution.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

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

I don’t know where did this come from. What we call “marriage” today is a relatively new phenomenon. For hundreds of thousands of years there was no “marriage”, and there was procreation. There was also the attempt to have fun without conceiving children. As old a behavior as humanity.

As your name suggests, I believe you are interested in Greek mythology and society.

Nope, not at all. I just like the reference to the goddess of wisdom.

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.

We do not contemplate the catholic definition of marriage. Though I highly doubt that the church would refuse to marry a man and a woman, if she had a hysterectomy, and as such unable to produce children. So the “child-card” is invalid.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Absolutely false. The primary purpose of marriage is to produce a family.

And a “family” is exactly what we declare to be a “family”. Ever heard of the phrase “extended family”? With aunts and nieces and all sorts of other relatives?

This is a dangerously immoral situation the Supreme Court has certified and the floodgates to other dangerously immoral situations being condoned has been opened, because how can homosexuals or heterosexual now object to incestuous marriage or polygamy.

Incest is a different category for obvious health reasons. But polygamy or polyandry present no health problem, even though the inheritance laws would have to be revisited. But apart from that there is no reason to object to them.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

One can invoke the pleasure part but not unreasonably. If all invocations of the pleasure part were rational, rape would also be rational for the rapist, and pedophilia for the pedophile.

You seem to think every sexual act is reasonable and rational?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And a “family” is exactly what we declare to be a “family”. Ever heard of the phrase “extended family”? With aunts and nieces and all sorts of other relatives?

If you are concerned for health reasons, why wouldn’t you be concerned for the injury to health following anal sodomy among same-sex partners?

webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

If incest marriages were permitted, you could at least minimize risk of damaged offspring by having no children at all. Isn’t there a better reason in your mind why incest marriages are wrong? They are against nature!!!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

One can invoke the pleasure part but not unreasonably. If all invocations of the pleasure part were rational, rape would also be rational for the rapist, and pedophilia for the pedophile.

You keep forgetting about the mutual consent. I wonder, why is that? After all it is “only” mentioned every time this subject is brought up.

You seem to think every sexual act is reasonable and rational?

Of course not. But any and all acts - whether they are sexual in nature or not - are fine as long as all the participants are aware of the situation, and voluntarily consent to it. And that would include the possible “third” party, who is not present - so there would be no cheating and no breach of trust. To bring up a rather strange event in Germany, two people agreed that one of them will kill and cannibalize the other. Since it happened with mutual consent I see nothing wrong with it.

If you are concerned for health reasons, why wouldn’t you be concerned for the injury to health following anal sodomy among same-sex partners?

As if there would be no other way than anal sex . As long as both parties agree to it, it is no one else’s business. Do you think that lesbians “damage” each other? Have you ever heard of non-intrusive (non-penetrating) love making?

If incest marriages were permitted, you could at least minimize risk of damaged offspring by having no children at all.

Yes, of course.

Isn’t there a better reason in your mind why incest marriages are wrong? They are against nature!!!

Nonsense. In nature no one keeps “tabs” on who is the offspring of whom. Incest does happen. And it did happen in the stone age. Also the roman emperors practiced it quite frequently. The Egyptian pharaohs routinely married their siblings.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You keep forgetting about the mutual consent. I wonder, why is that? After all it is “only” mentioned every time this subject is brought up.

Of course not. But any and all acts - whether they are sexual in nature or not - are fine as long as all the participants are aware of the situation, and voluntarily consent to it. And that would include the possible “third” party, who is not present - so there would be no cheating and no breach of trust. To bring up a rather strange event in Germany, two people agreed that one of them will kill and cannibalize the other. Since it happened with mutual consent I see nothing wrong with it.

As if there would be no other way than anal sex . As long as both parties agree to it, it is no one else’s business. Do you think that lesbians “damage” each other? Have you ever heard of non-intrusive (non-penetrating) love making?

Yes, of course.

Nonsense. In nature no one keeps “tabs” on who is the offspring of whom. Incest does happen. And it did happen in the stone age. Also the roman emperors practiced it quite frequently. The Egyptian pharaohs routinely married their siblings.

O.K. I see you are the complete moral relativists. As long as others do it, it’s O.K.

As long as we agree to do it, it’s O.K.

So as long as others pollute the earth, it’s O.K.?

So long as the earth agrees to be polluted, it’s O.K.?

Were you in the Stone Age to see incest happening and approved?

Did you know that the ancient Egyptian dynasty collapsed? Do you ever wonder why?

Did you know the Roman Empire collapsed? Do you ever wonder why?

Moral turpitude, maybe?

The bottom line of your pitiful morality is that you seem to be saying morality is all about what is, not what ought to be. Morality is based upon how we ought to behave, not how we behave. How we behave is often pitiful. How we ought to behave is never pitiful.

Yes, lesbians do damage each other by the profound misuse of their sex organs.

As if the mouth was made for the vagina and not for kissing men and having babies.

 

[Abba]

Yes, lesbians do damage each other by the profound misuse of their sex organs.

They also use tools.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

O.K. I see you are the complete moral relativists.

I never denied it. When I look at an act, I take all three “prongs” into consideration, the intent, the means (action) and the outcome. Just like the church does. However, I do not agree that any one can be evaluated on its own right. I do not accept that the act can be evaluated alone, regardless of the intent and the outcome. In other words, there are no “intrinsically evil” acts.

So as long as others pollute the earth, it’s O.K.?

Oh, please. Pollution adversely affects others, who do NOT agree. These non-sequiturs are very tiring.

Moral turpitude, maybe?

According to your concept of “morality”.

The bottom line of your pitiful morality is that you seem to be saying morality is all about what is, not what ought to be.

“Seem”? I don’t say anything like that. On the very contrary, it is all about the “ought” and not just about the “is”… however, the “is” must also be considered.

Yes, lesbians do damage each other by the profound misuse of their sex organs.

Somehow they are not aware of that “damage”. They simply love each other and express that love in a way that they find pleasurable. Since they do not affect you in any way, you should (or ought to) respect them, and stay out of their life and their bedroom. Why this incessant sticking your nose into other people’s business? Don’t you have anything better to do?

As if the mouth was made for the vagina and not for kissing men and having babies.

Have you ever heard of multiple uses? The mouth is also “made” for consuming food, for telling stories and singing… and kissing your partner’s erogenous zones. All of them are legitimate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I never denied it. When I look at an act, I take all three “prongs” into consideration, the intent, the means (action) and the outcome. Just like the church does. However, I do not agree that any one can be evaluated on its own right. I do not accept that the act can be evaluated alone, regardless of the intent and the outcome. In other words, there are no “intrinsically evil” acts.

Oh, please. Pollution adversely affects others, who do NOT agree. These non-sequiturs are very tiring.

According to your concept of “morality”.

“Seem”? I don’t say anything like that. On the very contrary, it is all about the “ought” and not just about the “is”… however, the “is” must also be considered.

Somehow they are not aware of that “damage”. They simply love each other and express that love in a way that they find pleasurable. Since they do not affect you in any way, you should (or ought to) respect them, and stay out of their life and their bedroom. Why this incessant sticking your nose into other people’s business? Don’t you have anything better to do?

Have you ever heard of multiple uses? The mouth is also “made” for consuming food, for telling stories and singing… and kissing your partner’s erogenous zones. All of them are legitimate.

Well, I suspect that you are an atheist with no regard whatever for any religious traditions, nor even for the fact that no civilization in the history of the world has ever countenanced same-sex marriage until our own lunatic civilization raised the issue.

It is tiresome to debate atheists because they never admit that the will of God trumps their own hedonistic desires.

Personally, I believe the double-size bed was invented for heterosexuals to have babies, not for homosexuals to lick each other’s genitals.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is tiresome to debate atheists because they never admit that the will of God trumps their own hedonistic desires.

God’s will would be respected, if he bothered to tell us about it. But he is just silent. If you think that you speak for God, you are seriously mistaken. I am aware that the church CLAIMS to speak for God, but there is no evidence for that. If God disapproves of our behavior, he can just “smite” the offenders.

Personally, I believe the double-size bed was invented for heterosexuals to have babies, not for homosexuals to lick each other’s genitals.

“Bay-bees” have been conceived way before double-size beds (or any beds) were manufactured.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Sure.

I said that same sex marriage doesn’t legalise or criminalise a homosexual union because I believe you were trying to insinuate that we are somehow oppressing those who hold a different view to us by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

I must be honest that this doesn’t help. First, it’s a bit of a run-on sentence so it’s not the easiest thing to parse. Second, it’s incorrect to say that same sex marriage doesn’t legalize or criminalize a homosexual union. The ruling and laws regarding same sex marriage by denifition will either legalize or criminalize a homosexual union. Third, there is a bright line between holding an opinion and wishing to enact laws that adversely affect a segment of the population (or wish to maintain laws that keep such adversity in place).

If you don’t think that man should be with man or woman should be with woman that is your perrogative. The trick is when the legal system gets involved and laws are put in place which affect those who may not share an opinion with you.

We take the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia (one of the absolutely wonderful names for a court case). Richard. Loving, a white man, married Mildred Loving, a black woman. There were anti-miscegenation laws in Viriginia preventing such marriages so they had the ceremony done in Washington DC then went back to their home in Virginia. The police found out and charge them with “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth”. The laws were in place because a significant percentage of the people felt that such unions would cause harm to its citizens and society in general. They were wrong.

The anti-miscegenation laws oppressed those who wished to be joined with members of different races. The court’s unanimous ruling legalized such unions.

So if you are saying that same sex marriage differs with interracial marriage to such a degree as to cause harm to its people, then you have to explain how. Detail what trobuels we can expect from the joining of people this way. Don’t just say that it’s wrong or you don’t like it, you need to tell us so that it can be seen by those who may not sure your particular religious beliefs.

Futhermore, I believe your analogy is fallicious because ‘relativism’ right from the get go, is doomed for failure.

How? What I did was a comparison – which showed how we should not allow laws to be passed that would cause harm to a group (in my example, Catholics threoretically being oppressed by Protestants) in order to maintain a peace wanted by the majority. That’s not relativism. If you can, I need you to explain why you think it’s relativism and not a fair comparison. Stating that I’m advocating relativism without going into the specifics is insufficient.