Arguments against 'gay rights'

[Saint_Sinner]

I need help. I’ve gotten into a discussion about ‘gay rights’ and the person I’m talking to has a degree in philosophy. He’s not real satisfied with my appeals to Natural Law.

He said:
“So, when you say that a gay couple raising a child goes against “natural law,” I have to ask, “What is natural law and what’s your evidence for such a thing?” You can’t invoke gravity to illustrate it. You have to prove that “natural law” (as you define it) actually exists. So far, your claim is pretty general and not at all specific and seems to rely on religious conviction. That’s my chief problem.”

I’m probably flubbing it but I want to be clear. Please help me.

 

[davidv]

You might want to start with getting a better understanding of what “natural law” is from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on it: newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

 

[PatrickJT914]

Hi SaintandSinner,

                  There are others on this forum who are better able to answer your question. However, let me give you I think. All one has to do is look at the living creatures on this planet to see that a vast majority of them reproduce with a male and female. And for the most part raise their young as a mother and father, not as a mother & mother, or as a father & father. Although I'm sure that there are some exceptions to this rule, but, not that many.

That to me is Natural Law, is doesn’t have to be necessarily only a religious response. For their sake you could answer them without a religious inference. Isn’t that what they wanted?

Anyway the best to you in dealing with the opposition.

 

[CapIV]

In order to prove Natural Law exists, one must prove Eternal Law exists since Natural Law is nothing but a participation of the Eternal Law. Which means you need to read Aquinas.

Anyone who says Natural Law doesn’t exist is either an idiot or doesn’t know what Natural Law is. If Natural Law didn’t exist, you couldn’t say that it didn’t exist because without Natural Law there is no reason and you would have no basis to know or say anything.

But if you don’t feel like doing that, just stay basic. Like, Man is a social creature. The family is the most immediate and therefore natural society. One cannot be born without immediate inclusion in a family. A family consists of a mother and a father because without a mother and a father a child cannot be born. Therefore, it is opposed to man’s nature to intentionally deprive him of a male and female influence. (notice I didn’t say mother and father since technically, the child could be adopted. Also, I said intentionally because a parent could die.) So therefore, in the case of adoption, it is best for the child to be given to a family with both a mother and a father.

 

[Tic_Toc]

I’m not going to lie: if you’re going to argue about a guy about gay rights and raising kids, that argument is pretty pointless.

Sure, we can all sit here and say that gay parents hurt kids because naturally, they can’t reproduce, but, gay people can be fine parents. Sexuality doesn’t have anything to do with raising kids.

 

[LittleDeb]

Saint&Sinner:
Sometimes the most effective apologetics is just asking the right questions. If he has a degree in philosophy then he is on his turf there. Ask him questions that get him thinking beyond his preconceived notions.

One of the directions I start with is asking “why two?” Start by asking why he just accepts a gay “couple.” What is inherently in the relationship that makes it one to one. Why do we draw an arbitrary line of two men, or two women? Why not 3 men, or 2 men and one woman? What your goal there is to help him examine his own thought process. One man-one woman is the relationship that makes a new life. All other marriages are based on that objective reality.

I usually give the example that my own parents can no longer create new life (post-menopausal) yet their marriage is interchangeable with any other marriage of one man and one woman. Is this man suggesting to you that my marriage to my husband is interchangeable to two women or two men? Is he suggesting that an infertile couple might as well be having sex with one of the same sex for all the good that it is doing to reproduce? I would suggest he duck before he said that to their faces.

The futher direction to go in is to ask if he is completely interchangeable with a woman. Was it just a flip of the coin that he was born male? Would he be an identical parent if he were female instead? He might try to go into society’s definition of men and women. Help him steer clear of that. That is just a red herring. Keep the focus on him. Is he inherently masculine?

After this discussion you can go into what a child learns about complementarity outside the bedroom. Are men and women merely neuters who can just flip a switch and become the other? Does a child learn on a fundamental level by witnessing complementarity? He may then bring up that single parents raise children successfully. This is very true! But let’s examine what those young people learn without the opposite role in their lives. That missing role is simply that, missing. While it might be filled by uncles or aunts, neighbors and friends, the child is still aware it is missing.

If it is just that “two” are raising a child regardless of sex, why is his line arbitrary? Why not three? Wouldn’t three parents be better than two based on his line of thinking? So if he is for “gay rights” he is also for group marriage and polygamy.

Good luck!!

 

[Newbie2]

I’m not going to lie: if you’re going to argue about a guy about gay rights and raising kids, that argument is pretty pointless.

Sure, we can all sit here and say that gay parents hurt kids because naturally, they can’t reproduce, but, gay people can be fine parents. Sexuality doesn’t have anything to do with raising kids.

Beg to differ. Natural law has way more implications besides reproduction. But you’ve got a point in perspective of the OP; arguing with the other person when they reject Natural law may be pointless.

I need help. I’ve gotten into a discussion about ‘gay rights’ and the person I’m talking to has a degree in philosophy. He’s not real satisfied with my appeals to Natural Law.

I’m probably flubbing it but I want to be clear. Please help me.

Put the onus on him to refute St. Thomas Aquinas. Just because you (and the rest of us for that matter) aren’t able to articulate natural law as brilliantly as TA isn’t a reason for dissing Natural Law as not existing.

Apparently he slept through the lectures in philosophy where scientific proof and philosophical proof were spelled out as very different things.

 

[KatyElizabeth]

I’m not going to lie: if you’re going to argue about a guy about gay rights and raising kids, that argument is pretty pointless.

Sure, we can all sit here and say that gay parents hurt kids because naturally, they can’t reproduce, but, gay people can be fine parents. Sexuality doesn’t have anything to do with raising kids.

Gays can indeed be gentle, loving, kind, fair disciplinarians and teachers of morality (except homosexuality). And I wonder sometimes what other moralities they would ignore. Like not going to church, for instance.

However, they can not be good gender role-models.

 

[fellowChristian]

Isn’t the “Law of Nature” to survive?

and in order to survive one must be able to reproduce.

If one can not reproduce they die out they do not survive.

Homosexuals on their own can not survive because they can not reproduce. They have to find other ways to conceive that are not natural. They have to break the Laws of Nature.

Think about it for a minute.

There are two animals one female the other male. They can’t reproduce. Do they go and steal a baby cub from another pack? No. They just don’t have babies and they die out.That is the Law of Nature.

Now if you ask me about male and women who can not have babies who go out and do those hormonal shots to get pregnant I would also say it’s wrong, that it’s playing God.

 

[Scottgun]

The first point to make is Natural Law is NOT what happens out in nature. Every now and then you will run into someone who cites evidence (dubious, but I’ll grant momentarily) that certain animals engage in homosex. So they say that means it’s natural and therefore it is morally acceptable. Dead wrong. By this logic, then because a praying mantis eats the head of her mate after copulation, it is ok for humans to do it. Natural Law does not mean scouring the animal kingdom for examples to justify deviant behavior. It means acting in accordance with what something was designed for.

 

[Scottgun]

The Church is unambiguous about homosexual “marriage” and raising children: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The whole thing is worth reading, but in particular:

1. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

In his original post he said:
"So, instead, I ask this. “Why don’t you believe in gay rights? Let’s sit down and talk about it. I might convince you otherwise and I’m open to the option that I might be wrong.”

And I then said:
“Fair enough. But notice I’m telling why I believe this is a problem. I think some of our discussion bled over into what society should do about it. That is peripheral to this more foundational discussion. I am also open to the possibility I might be wrong (in either first principals or in their application).”

He later said:
“So, when you say that a gay couple raising a child goes against “natural law,” I have to ask, “What is natural law and what’s your evidence for such a thing?” You can’t invoke gravity to illustrate it. You have to prove that “natural law” (as you define it) actually exists. So far, your claim is pretty general and not at all specific and seems to rely on religious conviction. That’s my chief problem.
Does that help narrow our conversation?”

And in my latest post I said (long):
"I think so. Are you asking me to ‘prove’ the existence of a Natural Moral Law to you? I’m probably not qualified to do such a thing. I wish I was more erudite on this subject. If this is what your looking for I can try to find some reading on the subject you might start at:
rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/natural_law/index.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

and just for kicks you may want to look at wendymcelroy.com/natlaw.htm by Wendy McElroy (hardly a conservative christian)

As a first attempt in our discussion though. Since you seem to react strongly to the existence of an external moral authority (such as a Natural Law), how do you make moral distinctions? I would be interested in learning more about your moral decision making framework. And, can you further explain your problems with Aquinas If he was correct, in so far as he knew, could someone update his work with modern understanding of the sciences etc and come to correct moral conclusions?

It has seemed to me in general that the existence of external moral principals can be inferred from desire by most persons to be treated well and a indignation when treated poorly. If there is an moral framework that binds everyone whether they know it or not isn’t this a ‘Natural Law’ a set of first principals that we must apply before moving on to the specific situation? If so, we agree on much more that we realize (its really just a matter of figuring out what these principals really are and discussing how to apply them). If not, how do you know your moral framework is correct and how do you account for others with different moral frameworks?

Since I believe there is a set of first principals (such as do not murder, do not steal etc). I take these and through my best judgment, using the competent authorities in the subjects help to assist me making a right judgment, I come to a moral decision that is binding to me. As long as someone was not crossing the first principals blatantly I would try to give someone the benefit of the doubt when seeing them apply these principals myself.

This is where we move from the general to the particular that I try to remain careful not to ‘judge’ harshly since I do not know the specific situation as well as the participants. So there is a distinction in my mind between individuals decisions and and societal decisions.

So, in the specific instance that you brought up (gay couple raising a child) I would have to make a distinction between the principals I believe in and move down to their application (that a child is best raised in a man/woman married household does not fulfill this criteria). This does not mean that the child would be better or worse off in a specific situation just that the moral framework would favor one over the other. I’m not sure if the distinction is so great that in a specific instance I would be required to attempt to change a specific child’s environment to fulfill these principals.

Please take your time; I have enjoyed this conversation immensely and look forward to our continued discussion."

So…am I missing or misstated anything?

 

[Dwyer]

I think this guy is being a little unfair to you, especially since he has a philosophy degree, asking you to “prove” that natural law exists. I think he should know better.

Philosophy really is recognized as fitting in between Theology on the one hand, and Science on the other.

In Catholic circles, theology is the Queen and philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.

In non-Catholic circles, philosophy is a way to analyze human actions. You can’t ask anyone really “to prove” a philosophy, that it objectively exists in fact.

So, for instance, say during WWII, the German armed forces plunder private art collections and museums.

Well, how do you know that action is a bad act??

You can use principles of logic and reasoning in philosophy and to analyze statements and actions, but philosophy is not a science.

How do you prove “all men are created equal” or the 18th century English Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s principle of utility that something is moral if it provides the greatest good to the greatest many (e.g., stem-cell research could provide many benefits for many patients, therefore embryonic destruction is moral because many could potentially benefit from the destruction).

Do you invoke gravity to prove Jefferson’s statement??

Philosophies are sets of ideas and you analyze various human actions and events based on those ideas.

Ask him, could Nieztsche prove his philosophy existed? Could Bentham prove his philosophy existed? Could they do so by invoking gravity??

Now he can argue that Natural Law is just one philosophy among many philosophies (a relativistic argument), but Natural Law’s root is in the human person, within humankind, and is not claimed to be the personal philosophy of a single indivdual alone, as Nietzsche’s was or John Locke’s.

From another post. I hope this helps.

I really think this guy is toying around with you if he is asking you to prove a philosophy exists.

I think his point is that he is arguing for moral relativism, that Natural Law has no place above any other system of moral philosophy (like Utilitarianism) since you can’t prove the other systems are false.

But the thing is is that you can’t prove that the other moral philosophies are true either, so why should Natural Law bow out from all the other philosophies??

I have to disagree with Polaris about natural law being specifically a Christian theory of what is right and what is wrong.

I won’t be able to go into detail right now, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to return to this Thread specifically.

But natural law had its roots in Greek philosophy, including the philosophy of Socrates.

Natural law is derived by direct or indirect deductions from the basic moral principle “Do good and avoid evil.”

Natural law is recognizable by all human beings; the natural law derieves its validity from the natural law itself.

Natural law can be used by Christians, and it is, but it also can be used by atheists, hedonists, cynics, members of other religions, and all mankind.

This is probably one of the better natural law arguments:

Quote:
This is an easy question, and it can be proved without bringing God into the equation (not out of disrespect, but usually the opponents of this argument dont belive in God to begin with).

The purpose of finding a mate is the pro-create period, no ifs ands or buts. Semen is designed to end up in one place, and any other use of it (whether by heterosexuals, homosexuals, or scientists) is illicit and highly against the natural law. What is the natural law? If a species is to survive it must reproduce.

I think you could also make an argument from CUSTOM or HUMAN TRADITION:

Most human societies, historically, have prohibited homosexuality; there may have been one or two glaring exceptions (perhaps in Ancient Greece; but the Ancient Greeks were exceptionally different from almost every society that has ever existed, including our own).

(We like to think our American society is the intellectual descendant of Ancient Greece, but it is very different.

Only in Ancient Greece could Aristophanes write a play satirizing the Athenian war against Sparta, and people flocked to the Theater to see it, and Aristophanes wasn’t punished for writing it.

 

[Alverno]

“I need help. I’ve gotten into a discussion about ‘gay rights’ and the person I’m talking to has a degree in philosophy. He’s not real satisfied with my appeals to Natural Law.”

The choice to be homosexual has a long history in the evolution of morality. Other than their sexual orientation they are quite normal in most respects and like any one else, can be good or bad people. I am not homophobic, yet I do not agree with their choice of sexual orientation. Scripture calls the union of same sex people an ‘abomination’. I believe the city of Sodom was destroyed by God because of this sexual orientation. If it happened before, it will happen again. Then people will start all over again and forget their chastisement and sin again. But sins do not go unnoticed or unpunished. This isn’t just about gays, but all who sin against God and are not repentent. Why do we have to do things the hard way?