homosexual marriage

[CopticChristian]

Also, one thing to be aware of is that her opponent is almost certainly going to say at some point that homosexual “marriage” is a “right.” This needs to be challenged and firmly, especially because gay “marriage” proponents are probably disproportionately likely to be atheist liberals who deny all the metaphysical bases from which “rights” could be said to arise.

So, if confronted with this claim, she needs to ask, and vigorously demand an answer to, these questions: what right? Where does this right come from – what is it’s source? Why is it no one noticed it existed until approx. 5 minutes ago?

Here it’s worth looking at the historical consensus about where rights come from. For far-rightists like me, rights derive from our duties. This is the natural law take. A right is the “can” to duty’s “ought.” But natural law furnishes absolutely no basis for a “right” to gay marriage, precisely because you have a duty to avoid that which goes against the natural law and therefore a duty not to have gay sex entirely. So clearly, this “right” doesn’t come from gay marriage.

For center-rightists, including most of Protestantism, “rights” come from God; they are revealed by Him directly or else derive from the duties He has proscribed for us. Here, too, there is no basis for saying there is a “right” to gay marriage, especially if her opponent is either an atheist (doesn’t believe in God) or a secularist (doesn’t believe God should have anything to do with the ordering of civil society). God, at least the God of the Bible, has clearly and repeatedly condemned sexual immorality of all sort. The only form of sexual arrangement we know with certainty he has endorsed is heteronormative marriage, and as St. Paul suggests, this was only a grudging concession.

I have heard it said before that this “right” comes from the “innate dignity” of the human person. I would defy that person to explain what this “innate dignity” is, what it means, and how/why a “right” to “gay marriage” derives from it. Incidentally, the person I heard this from was a leftist atheist who had just denied my natural law take against homosexuality on the grounds that “human nature” is a subjective fiction, that the phrase “humanity” is a mere heuristic for describing a large mass of dissimilar people with no correspondence to objective reality. Well, obviously, if he believes this, there is no reason to believe in anything like the “innate dignity” of the human person, anyway.

Finally, there’s the “social contract” approach. Rights derive from social consensus. Obviously, though, they don’t believe this, or they would never have started their push for gay “marriage,” since support for was in the single-digits when they started demanding that this “right” be recognized. You can’t claim the social contact yields a right when trying to renegotiate the social contract to make up that right in the first place. The best that can be said is that they want to renegotiate the social contract because they think it would produce a better arrangement of things than the current arrangement. In that case, her opponent needs to stop talking about “rights” entirely and start talking about whether or not gay “marriage” is good or bad. Insisting that it’s a “right,” in that case, is tantamount to mutilating the language in order to endow his/her position with a moral normativity it simply doesn’t warrant.

Once her opponent is forced into this position, she can start asking what, exactly, constitutes “good” and “bad.” Here, she must point out, we cannot divorce our discussion from what is moral, since morality is, by definition, a coherent understanding of “good” and “bad.” With some finesse she can compel her opponent to admit that she is a consequentialist and utilitarian, i.e., she wants gay “marriage” because her opponent thinks happiness is the highest good and doesn’t care what means are used to achieve an increase in happiness. Here, she can simply point out the horrors that would arise from such a system, rigorously applied. For instance, it would furnish no basis for objecting to a doctor murdering one patient and harvesting his organs in order to transplant them into five others, saving their lives. Such a thing would, indeed, produce an increase an happiness, yet no one thinks it would be desirable. Here, she’s won the debate.

I hope this helps. I think it’s really cool you’re supporting your daughter and helping her to prepare for her debate this way.

This is good:thumbsup:

 

[Hokomai]

Ho,

Lets set some ground work for discussion.

I ask you to consider the work of Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity and Manhood of humanity. He says that humans time bind. In other words the reason we can do what animals cannot do is because we look to the past and add information. A good example would be Astronauts. Who would have thought that we would have airplanes and with that technology, by time binding, or adding past knowledge to present technology we time bind and sent Astronauts into space. I ask you to consider this notion of time binding or learning from the past. Computers and the information added to computer technology would be another example of time binding. OK. Next,

If you believe in creation then there must have been a first man and a first woman.

I don’t know how you percieve the beginning if you believe in evolution. I studied evolution however I might imagine that you would agree that somehow, someway there must have been a first man and a first woman.

Is this agreeable to you?

Evolution occurs through selection for beneficial characteristics. The first ‘modern’ humans undoubtedly also had sex with humans who would be considered ‘earlier’ in development. They also, it has now been demonstrated, had sex and children with neanderthals (separated by half million years or more in ancestry) and possibly other species as well. So no, I do not think there is likely to have been anything that could be called a “first man” or “first woman”. It is also entirely possible that the combination of genes that creates homo sapiens sapiens as a distinct speciation appeared in a single individual first, and reappeared in several descendants after a generation or two, which might give us a first woman, but no first man. I think the first modern man or the first modern woman probably had sex with their pre-modern cousins, who had sex with each other etc. I know it is a Catholic teaching that there was a first man and first woman, but there is no science to support this, and as a historical proposition it seems vanishingly unlikely.

I am happy to keep playing, but where is this heading?

 

[Hokomai]

Even if true, I don’t see that it shifts the burden of proof away from advocates of SS"M". Evidently you couldn’t come up with some benefits to society; ergo, there are none…

I blush to see that you think things are real only if I can think of them. But here are a couple of societal benefits from allowing adults who love each other to marry irrespective of sex: justice and fairness.

 

[sw85]

Evolution occurs through selection for beneficial characteristics. The first ‘modern’ humans undoubtedly also had sex with humans who would be considered ‘earlier’ in development. They also, it has now been demonstrated, had sex and children with neanderthals (separated by half million years or more in ancestry) and possibly other species as well. So no, I do not think there is likely to have been anything that could be called a “first man” or “first woman”. It is also entirely possible that the combination of genes that creates homo sapiens sapiens as a distinct speciation appeared in a single individual first, and reappeared in several descendants after a generation or two, which might give us a first woman, but no first man. I think the first modern man or the first modern woman probably had sex with their pre-modern cousins, who had sex with each other etc. I know it is a Catholic teaching that there was a first man and first woman, but there is no science to support this, and as a historical proposition it seems vanishingly unlikely.

I am happy to keep playing, but where is this heading?

Edward Feser demonstrated that it is not in principle impossible to reconcile the principle of two first humans with the findings of modern biology, provided you bear in mind what is meant when we talk about “first humans”:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

I blush to see that you think things are real only if I can think of them. But here are a couple of societal benefits from allowing adults who love each other to marry irrespective of sex: justice and fairness.

This is kind of begging the question. Whether or not it is a matter of justice is precisely what’s at issue. As I argue above, there is no “right” to gay marriage, therefore it is neither unjust nor unfair to say as much. In fact insofar as “justice” consists in giving everything and everyone that which is due to them, it would be an affront against justice to give homosexuals that which they aren’t entitled.

 

[sedonaman]

Edward Feser demonstrated that it is not in principle impossible to reconcile the principle of two first humans with the findings of modern biology, provided you bear in mind what is meant when we talk about “first humans”:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

This is kind of begging the question. Whether or not it is a matter of justice is precisely what’s at issue. As I argue above, there is no “right” to gay marriage, therefore it is neither unjust nor unfair to say as much. In fact insofar as “justice” consists in giving everything and everyone that which is due to them, it would be an affront against justice to give homosexuals that which they aren’t entitled.

To this I would add, first, that “fairness” does not exist, and, second, what is due the child? Marriage exists because of children who are entitled to the influence of both a mother and father. This is not always possible [e.g., one parent dies], but what is “just” about purposely turning over a child to people who cannot provide both? SS"M" advocates’ arguments all focus on their personal desires, not public ones; therefore, the burden of proof has not been met.

P.S. Feser is a good author.

 

[CopticChristian]

Evolution occurs through selection for beneficial characteristics. The first ‘modern’ humans undoubtedly also had sex with humans who would be considered ‘earlier’ in development. They also, it has now been demonstrated, had sex and children with neanderthals (separated by half million years or more in ancestry) and possibly other species as well. So no, I do not think there is likely to have been anything that could be called a “first man” or “first woman”. It is also entirely possible that the combination of genes that creates homo sapiens sapiens as a distinct speciation appeared in a single individual first, and reappeared in several descendants after a generation or two, which might give us a first woman, but no first man. I think the first modern man or the first modern woman probably had sex with their pre-modern cousins, who had sex with each other etc. I know it is a Catholic teaching that there was a first man and first woman, but there is no science to support this, and as a historical proposition it seems vanishingly unlikely.

I am happy to keep playing, but where is this heading?

Neanderthals? Do we have anything written by these people about what they did?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Evolution occurs through selection for beneficial characteristics. The first ‘modern’ humans undoubtedly also had sex with humans who would be considered ‘earlier’ in development. They also, it has now been demonstrated, had sex and children with neanderthals (separated by half million years or more in ancestry) and possibly other species as well. So no, I do not think there is likely to have been anything that could be called a “first man” or “first woman”. It is also entirely possible that the combination of genes that creates homo sapiens sapiens as a distinct speciation appeared in a single individual first, and reappeared in several descendants after a generation or two, which might give us a first woman, but no first man. I think the first modern man or the first modern woman probably had sex with their pre-modern cousins, who had sex with each other etc. I know it is a Catholic teaching that there was a first man and first woman, but there is no science to support this, and as a historical proposition it seems vanishingly unlikely.

Even with your “scientific” explanation, the men and women had sex, not men and men, or women and women, else you wouldn’t be here today.

 

[Ranp]

Evolution occurs through selection for beneficial characteristics. The first ‘modern’ humans undoubtedly also had sex with humans who would be considered ‘earlier’ in development. They also, it has now been demonstrated, had sex and children with neanderthals (separated by half million years or more in ancestry) and possibly other species as well.

Modern man and Neanderthals are both sub-species of the species Homo Sapien. Neanderthals did develop first but they are both the same species.

Evolution does occurs through Natural Selection for beneficial characteristics. However, evolution also occures through Sexual Selection, which is more easily seen in the breeds of different animals. My standard question to those who do not believe in evolution is, “What breed of dog do you own?”.

Ran

 

[Hokomai]

Even with your “scientific” explanation, the men and women had sex, not men and men, or women and women, else you wouldn’t be here today.

Well, our closest relatives, the bonobo, have a lot of sex with others of the same sex. It has not stopped them having sex with bonobos of the opposite sex. It’s reasonable to think that the earliest humans did the same.

 

[Hokomai]

Neanderthals? Do we have anything written by these people about what they did?

No, and neither do we have anything written by Adam, Eve or Jesus.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, our closest relatives, the bonobo, have a lot of sex with others of the same sex. It has not stopped them having sex with bonobos of the opposite sex. It’s reasonable to think that the earliest humans did the same.

I don’t think apes have much to do with us. If **you **want to stoop to being an animal, go ahead. Homosexuals always want to show how animals have sex. I think humans are should aspire higher.

 

[Hokomai]

I don’t think apes have much to do with us. If **you **want to stoop to being an animal, go ahead. Homosexuals always want to show how animals have sex. I think humans are should aspire higher.

I am an animal. And so are you. So is everyone. You are responding to a point I made rsponding in turn to a claim that our early human ancestors must have had sex between the sexes or we would not be here. Right as far as it goes, but I was pointing out that it is possible to also have homosexual sex. I pointed out, as we were discussing early humans, that our closest living relatives, the Bonobo does this. It is only about five million years since we an bonobos had common ancestors. Their behaviours can tell us things about our own. Your rhetoric is unfair to me, and to everyone who seeks truth by looking at facts.

 

[sedonaman]

I am an animal. And so are you. So is everyone. …

You are “not a believer” according to your heading. Christians believe man is created in the image and likeness of God, and animals are not. So, from a Christian perspective, it is not exactly accurate to call a human being an animal.

---

“Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of them have ever been held accountable.

 

[hglundahl]

She will be arguing against homosexual marriage. We would like to hear any good arguments that may assist her, biblical or not.

Sorry for a few spelling mistakes in the link, but here goes:

filolohika.blogspot.fr/2011/02/there-is-nothing-wrong-in-redefining.html

One can also say:

• anyone who lives in mortal sin needs to correct that as soon as possible
• for some living in mortal sin Christian marriage is the best correction
• someone in a sodomitic or lesbian relation needs a partner change to achieve Christian marriage
• but if sodomitic or lesbian relation is falsely labelled marriage by society, they impede considerably the Christian marriage which must be preceded by a divorce procedure
• wherefore “gay marriage” would either keep people in mortal sin for longer than they need now or speed up divorce procedures from what they are now and thereby lead people into mortal sins

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I am an animal. And so are you. So is everyone. You are responding to a point I made rsponding in turn to a claim that our early human ancestors must have had sex between the sexes or we would not be here. Right as far as it goes, but I was pointing out that it is possible to also have homosexual sex. I pointed out, as we were discussing early humans, that our closest living relatives, the Bonobo does this. It is only about five million years since we an bonobos had common ancestors. Their behaviours can tell us things about our own. Your rhetoric is unfair to me, and to everyone who seeks truth by looking at facts.

Evolution is a theory, and in my opinion, not very well thought out one.

I am a human being, not a bonobo, nor am I descendent of one. I can’t say about your ancestors.

Bonobos seem like a very weird and disordered animal species. Chimps don’t act like that, nor to most other animals.

The purpose of life according to evolutionary theory is preservation of the species. It can’t be done having homosexual “sex”.

 

[Hokomai]

Evolution is a theory, and in my opinion, not very well thought out one.

I am a human being, not a bonobo, nor am I descendent of one. I can’t say about your ancestors.

Bonobos seem like a very weird and disordered animal species. Chimps don’t act like that, nor to most other animals.

The purpose of life according to evolutionary theory is preservation of the species. It can’t be done having homosexual “sex”.

Christine you are wrong about evolution. Evolution is a fact. I can prove it to you in a few words: DNA and other genetic material is transferred by descent alone. You and I share DNA with every other living thing. Therefore we, and they, are related by descent. This is a fact. There are theories about how this happens, and these are being constantly refined and challenged by science. But the fact is indisputable. You are also wrong about ‘the purpose of life according to evolutionary theory’ being the ‘preservation of the species’. Evolutionary theory explains how species evolve from each other, and does not postulate a tendency ‘to be preserved’. also, there are few evolutionary theorists who would say that their theory demonstrates a ‘purpose’ to life. That is not what evolutionary theory is about.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Christine you are wrong about evolution. Evolution is a fact. I can prove it to you in a few words: DNA and other genetic material is transferred by descent alone. You and I share DNA with every other living thing. Therefore we, and they, are related by descent. This is a fact. There are theories about how this happens, and these are being constantly refined and challenged by science. But the fact is indisputable. You are also wrong about ‘the purpose of life according to evolutionary theory’ being the ‘preservation of the species’. Evolutionary theory explains how species evolve from each other, and does not postulate a tendency ‘to be preserved’. also, there are few evolutionary theorists who would say that their theory demonstrates a ‘purpose’ to life. That is not what evolutionary theory is about.

We are made of the same stuff. That doesn’t prove evolution. I believe God made us all out of the same stuff, but as humans we are a cut above the animals. Maybe just a little twist of the old DNA, stuff of life.

What good is a theory if it doesn’t explain why, just how?

We do have a purpose, we have brains that can reason, we can read and write, play music, sing, speak thousands of ideas, wonder about where we came from and where we are going. We are made a little lower than the angels, but I 'm sure they don’t fit into the evolutionary theory.

 

[Publisher]

We are made of the same stuff. That doesn’t prove evolution. I believe God made us all out of the same stuff, but as humans we are a cut above the animals. Maybe just a little twist of the old DNA, stuff of life.

What good is a theory if it doesn’t explain why, just how?

We do have a purpose, we have brains that can reason, we can read and write, play music, sing, speak thousands of ideas, wonder about where we came from and where we are going. We are made a little lower than the angels, but I 'm sure they don’t fit into the evolutionary theory.

Because scientific theory is not based on “the purpose of life” and such mystical/religious questions…but observable facts and THEN postulate a “theory” that works for the model until other FACTS enter into the equation and a revision must be made to the “theory”…mystical/moral/religious answers do not enter into it. So far the “theory of evolution” is demonstrable by scientific evidence…when ne evidence presents itself…the adjustments to the “theory” can be made.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Because scientific theory is not based on “the purpose of life” and such mystical/religious questions…but observable facts and THEN postulate a “theory” that works for the model until other FACTS enter into the equation and a revision must be made to the “theory”…mystical/moral/religious answers do not enter into it. So far the “theory of evolution” is demonstrable by scientific evidence…when ne evidence presents itself…the adjustments to the “theory” can be made.

Actually I have nothing against the evolutionary theory, in that I think we all are made out of the same stuff. However, I do not think man evolved from apes and that has never been proven by science.

So so say that bonobo sex habits are comparable to humans is pretty lame to say the least. Although I agree, some men act like apes, it is nothing to be aspiring to.

 

[Publisher]

Actually I have nothing against the evolutionary theory, in that I think we all are made out of the same stuff. However, I do not think man evolved from apes and that has never been proven by science.

So so say that bonobo sex habits are comparable to humans is pretty lame to say the least. Although I agree, some men act like apes, it is nothing to be aspiring to.

What has been proven is we share DNA…that suggests, baring any divine undemonstrable influence that we somehow are related…and that “relation” is explained thru the “theory of evolution”…that we share a common ancestor with the ape…we did not decend from apes…but humans and apes share a common ancestor from the far far distant past…at some “point” in our evolutionary history…our two species diverged and apes evolved along their “branch”…and homo spaiens evolved along our “branch”…we did not evolve from apes…but apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor…that is a HUGE difference than claiming we “evolved from apes”.