Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[MindOverMatter2]

This is an argument i have made supporting the legality of gay rights.

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.
2. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.
3. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights
4. Therefore the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples because…
5. Any possible moral errors in respect of divinity are beyond the knowledge of the state, and thus the state is invincibly ignorant to any divine testimony or authority.
6. Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

 

[bmullins]

By those same terms, any behavior that falls under the terms pragmatic and utilitarian can be justified. Imagine if we followed those rules when deciding if slavery were a bad thing? It would definitely be beneficial to those who were in charge to keep slaves, and it would have been very much realistic.

In fact, if we want government to be kept completely separate from rights, we have to get government completely out of the definition of marriage. Marriage is not a legal institution, it’s a spiritual institution. It’s only when we try to redefine marriage that we start to see it as nothing more than a legal precedent.

The best possible solution is to remove the word marriage from government vocabulary. Require all people who want to live together and have the legal rights that are currently associated with marriage (inheritance, presence at the death bed, etc) to have to have a ‘civil union’. At that point getting married will be exactly what it is, a matter between a man, wife and God. Even those who get married if they want legal rights must go and get a civil union (which we have to file anyway now, so it won’t change the process). It will also end the debate.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

By those same terms, any behavior that falls under the terms pragmatic and utilitarian can be justified. Imagine if we followed those rules when deciding if slavery were a bad thing? It would definitely be beneficial to those who were in charge to keep slaves, and it would have been very much realistic.

In fact, if we want government to be kept completely separate from rights, we have to get government completely out of the definition of marriage. Marriage is not a legal institution, it’s a spiritual institution. It’s only when we try to redefine marriage that we start to see it as nothing more than a legal precedent.

The best possible solution is to remove the word marriage from government vocabulary. Require all people who want to live together and have the legal rights that are currently associated with marriage (inheritance, presence at the death bed, etc) to have to have a ‘civil union’. At that point getting married will be exactly what it is, a matter between a man, wife and God. Even those who get married if they want legal rights must go and get a civil union (which we have to file anyway now, so it won’t change the process). It will also end the debate.

I agree that the state is hypocritical. Although i am not sure that slavery can be justified on utilitarian grounds if the majority is against it. You have to take in to consideration that the true power is in the hands of the workers since they help the state to survive, and if the vast majority of workers are against slavery and if the continuation of which would threaten to bring the system to halt, then the state would have to reject slavery on the basis that slavery is insufficient in terms of maintenance. In this case “might makes right”. Every right that has been given by the state has been influence by the consequences; not knowledge of divinity. If Christian ideas have been accepted by the state it is only because they have a pragmatic value.

As for gay marriage, you made a good point. But so long as state sponsored marriage exists, gay marriage inevitably follows.

Also, perhaps “state sponsored marriage” can be argued as pragmatically valid if the majority of society demands it. State sponsored marriage is by definition not a Christian marriage. You are being married by the state not God. The marriage itself seems to be purely about preserving the economic value of two people on legal grounds, and thus i can see why the state would support legalized marriages.

 

[Philotheatoo]

It would truly be a sad thing if the religious and moral convictions upon which the American experiment was founded could now somehow be considered a danger to free society, such that those who would bring these convictions to bear upon your nation’s public life would be denied a voice in debating and resolving issues of public policy. The original separation of Church and State in the United States was CERTAINLY not an effort to ban all religious conviction from the public sphere, a kind of banishment of God from civil society. Indeed the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their religious persuasion, are convinced that religious conviction and religiously informed moral argument have a vital role in public life. ~ JP The Great

Further; The right to freedom of thought and expression…cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers~The Vatican

God bless you, me, and all of us.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

This is an argument i have made supporting the legality of gay rights.

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.
2. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.
3. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights
4. Therefore the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples because…
5. Any possible moral errors in respect of divinity are beyond the knowledge of the state, and thus the state is invincibly ignorant to any divine testimony or authority.
6. Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

You know perfectly well from history that there were religions that preached human sacrifices, canibalism, poligamy, incest, racism (“the black has no soul!”) and many other behaviors that I do not dare mention.

So, what is the role of the State in such situations?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It would truly be a sad thing if the religious and moral convictions upon which the American experiment was founded could now somehow be considered a danger to free society, such that those who would bring these convictions to bear upon your nation’s public life would be denied a voice in debating and resolving issues of public policy. The original separation of Church and State in the United States was CERTAINLY not an effort to ban all religious conviction from the public sphere, a kind of banishment of God from civil society. Indeed the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their religious persuasion, are convinced that religious conviction and religiously informed moral argument have a vital role in public life. ~ JP The Great

America is not a theocracy. America, while they may be influenced by religious convictions, do not have the power to enforce rules or reject rules because of religious convictions. The split between church and state certainly does not imply a banishment of religion; but it certainly does imply a banishment of the idea that the state dictates its law according to the bible or scripture or any particular religious belief systems. If that were true you would be living in a theocracy. Christianity has no more legal authority on what decides state law than any other religion. That fact evidently has implications and is the reason why homosexual marriage is now a legal right in some places.

Further; The right to freedom of thought and expression…cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers~The Vatican

God bless you, me, and all of us.

If the state is not forcing the Catholic Church to marry gays under God, then no offense is taking place. There is no more offense taking place than the legalization of sex before marriage or the legalization of condoms. The only thing the Catholic Church can say is that state laws on marriage no-longer conforms to Catholic teaching and in that respect state marriage no-longer represents the religious conception of marriage (and that is if it ever did in the first place). .

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You know perfectly well from history that there were religions that preached human sacrifices, canibalism, poligamy, incest, racism (“the black has no soul!”) and many other behaviors that I do not dare mention.

So, what is the role of the State in such situations?

It cannot possibly have a religious role thats for sure.

 

[inocente]

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.

Outside of particular religions there’s no agreement about what the divine law says, or even that it exists. This doesn’t force us down a pragmatic or utilitarian route, for instance the German constitution places the dignity of the person above all else:

Article 1: Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. - btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf

2. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.

It’s far from evident to many Christians (including me) that “homosexual behavior” is immoral, without going near pragmatism or utilitarianism.

*5. Any possible moral errors in respect of divinity are beyond the knowledge of the state, and thus the state is invincibly ignorant to any divine testimony or authority. *

In a democracy, laws unusually reflect the morality of the people. In states where gay marriage and adoption are legal, we’d expect that the majority of people do not believe either is immoral.

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

Separation of church and state flows, in essence, from the golden rule. We support the separation if we want to be able to determine our religion and convictions for ourselves, and if we want it then “do unto others” says we must support the absolute right of everyone else to do the same. We don’t have to compromise our own morality, but we do need to recognize the will of the majority.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Outside of particular religions there’s no agreement about what the divine law says, or even that it exists. This doesn’t force us down a pragmatic or utilitarian route, for instance the German constitution places the dignity of the person above all else:

Article 1: Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. - btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf

Do you have a reading problem? Its irrelevant what some state actually does. I am taking about the theoretical consequences of there being a split between church and state. If there is a split between church and state, then such a claim can only be pragmatic. That people have value is a politically imposed value based upon the pragmatic consideration that we will all live in a better world if this is enforced by law. It is not a conviction based upon evidence of an objective moral right. The state intends to enforce it regardless of whether its objectively true that we have moral value or not.

It’s far from evident to many Christians (including me) that “homosexual behavior” is immoral, without going near pragmatism or utilitarianism.

Your personal convictions is irrelevant. If there is a split between church and state, then there is no basis upon which to reject state protected homosexual marriage.

This is not a discussion on whether or not Christianity opposes homosexuality. Take that elsewhere.

In a democracy, laws unusually reflect the morality of the people. In states where gay marriage and adoption are legal, we’d expect that the majority of people do not believe either is immoral.

But they are not enforced by the people. Also, if people are not getting their conviction from religion, then their reasons for supporting anything is based upon either a delusion, or it is a based upon what they believe is pragmatically beneficial for society as a whole.

Separation of church and state flows, in essence, from the golden rule. We support the separation if we want to be able to determine our religion and convictions for ourselves, and if we want it then “do unto others” says we must support the absolute right of everyone else to do the same. We don’t have to compromise our own morality, but we do need to recognize the will of the majority.

I have not said otherwise. The golden rule is pragmatic.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

This is an argument i have made supporting the legality of gay rights.

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.
2. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.
3. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights
4. Therefore the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples because…
5. Any possible moral errors in respect of divinity are beyond the knowledge of the state, and thus the state is invincibly ignorant to any divine testimony or authority.
6. Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

I don’t support the division of Church and State, however, I don’t believe in the persecution of any particular group; therefore I believe in a moral stance but the allowance of the homosexual lifestyle which includes marriage outside of the Church.

 

[JRKH]

This is an argument i have made supporting the legality of gay rights.

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.
2. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.
3. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights
4. Therefore the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples because…
5. Any possible moral errors in respect of divinity are beyond the knowledge of the state, and thus the state is invincibly ignorant to any divine testimony or authority.
6. Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

I believe this argument is a pretty good one…Don’t have time to really delve into it right now, but ill mention one factor that must be taken into account - especially as it pertains to a democratic society.
That Factor is the “Will of the People”.
The “State” - per-se - may “only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.” but the state remains subject to the will of the people.
The people are NOT constrained to ignore “divine law”.
The people express what is “pragmatic and utilitarian” to the government through speech and through the ballot box.

So - it is “the people” who largely decide what is “pragmatic and utilitarian” - Not the Government.

Peace
James

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t support the division of Church and State, however, I don’t believe in the persecution of any particular group; therefore I believe in a moral stance but the allowance of the homosexual lifestyle which includes marriage outside of the Church.

This is the first intelligent and honest post i have seen so far. You have shown that you have actually understood the argument. Thanks


However i digress. If we lived in a Catholic theocracy they would not support state sponsored gay marriage and adoption by gay couples. Private marriage on the other hand ought to be the liberty of the individual, gay or otherwise.

I would be very surprised if you could show me evidence to the contrary. You are free to prove me mistaken.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I believe this argument is a pretty good one…Don’t have time to really delve into it right now, but ill mention one factor that must be taken into account - especially as it pertains to a democratic society.
That Factor is the “Will of the People”.
The “State” - per-se - may “only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.” but the state remains subject to the will of the people.
The people are NOT constrained to ignore “divine law”.
The people express what is “pragmatic and utilitarian” to the government through speech and through the ballot box.

So - it is “the people” who largely decide what is “pragmatic and utilitarian” - Not the Government.

Peace
James

Thanks for your reply. Its a good one. I will give it some thought before answering.

 

[JRKH]

Got a few more minutes now - Want to take a look at each of your points…

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.

“Pragmatic and utilitarian values” seems like a rather vague set of criteria. Every Government in history has made judgements based on these including the great and evil despots…

1. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.

Neither is is evident that gay marriage and adoption of children by gay couples is moral.

1. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights

Agreed.

1. Therefore the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples because…

1. Any possible moral errors in respect of divinity are beyond the knowledge of the state, and thus the state is invincibly ignorant to any divine testimony or authority.

Agree that the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage, but it is just as legally justified in NOT supporting gay marriage…It depends on what is seen as properly, “pragmatic and utilitarian”.

1. Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

True - but it CAN oppose things based on the basis of the beliefs of those to whom they are responsible.
In the U.S. that is the beliefs of the voters (or the beliefs of the Supreme court Justices).
In more despotic forms of governance, it would be the beliefs of the despot and his cronies.

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

Not true. By your statement here, we would have to support abortion.
We have to accept that, for the time being, abortion is the law of the land, but we most definitely DO NOT have to “support” something that goes against our beliefs.

Peace
James

 

[sedonaman]

This is an argument i have made supporting the legality of gay rights.

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.
2. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.
3. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights
4. Therefore the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples because…
5. Any possible moral errors in respect of divinity are beyond the knowledge of the state, and thus the state is invincibly ignorant to any divine testimony or authority.
6. Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=osCnn-ATrcI
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzCFMCsIb4
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=atsAiYpyI9M&feature=related
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=VwyOHhJAYko&feature=related

 

[inocente]

Do you have a reading problem? Its irrelevant what some state actually does. I am taking about the theoretical consequences of there being a split between church and state. If there is a split between church and state, then such a claim can only be pragmatic.

Do you have a comprehension problem? Pragmatic means solving problems in a practical way without fixed theories and rules, it means being practical not idealistic. I gave Germany as an example of a highly idealistic and yet secular democratic constitution. So a split between the German state and a church would be between two ideals.

That people have value is a politically imposed value based upon the pragmatic consideration that we will all live in a better world if this is enforced by law. It is not a conviction based upon evidence of an objective moral right. The state intends to enforce it regardless of whether its objectively true that we have moral value or not.

No, we can idealistically and unpragmatically believe that people have value without any recourse to utilitarianism or belief in your objective moral right.

If there is a split between church and state, then there is no basis upon which to reject state protected homosexual marriage.

Of course there is. If your church doesn’t accept gay marriage then why isn’t that sufficient moral basis for you?

But they are not enforced by the people. Also, if people are not getting their conviction from religion, then their reasons for supporting anything is based upon either a delusion, or it is a based upon what they believe is pragmatically beneficial for society as a whole.

Why are convictions from religion less delusional than convictions from elsewhere? Put another way, if someone is religious but not part of an organized religion, are their convictions automatically more deluded than those of the organized religion? Basically then, the religion with most adherents is the least deluded and might is right, is that how it works?

I have not said otherwise. The golden rule is pragmatic.

Then Christian morality is pragmatic, your divine law is pragmatic, and even a state compelled by your divine law is pragmatic.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

This is the first intelligent and honest post i have seen so far. You have shown that you have actually understood the argument. Thanks


However i digress. If we lived in a Catholic theocracy they would not support state sponsored gay marriage and adoption by gay couples. Private marriage on the other hand ought to be the liberty of the individual, gay or otherwise.

I would be very surprised if you could show me evidence to the contrary. You are free to prove me mistaken.

I’m not talking about a Catholic Theocracy. I’m talking about a system of moral support where the Church is respected as a loving father figure. Ultimately, it is the people that decide governance. In other words the Church is just there for example while people must choose to or not to follow that example.

Not all private marriage should be the liberty of the individual. Say, a man should not be able to marry a 3 year old girl. There must be some restrictions to marriage in regards to sexual perversion. I would be happy with describing marriage as between TWO consenting adults.

I still, however, take the stance with the Church and say that homosexual marriage is morrally wrong; but I do not wish to persecute or deprive anyone of life liberty or happiness so I accept homosexual marriage. Therefore, the sin is on the homosexual’s conscience–between him/her and God.

It is not my place to execute judgment and therefore it is not my place to pass laws against people. Homosexuals should have the freedom to live their lives without oppression. It is between them and God.

 

[sedonaman]

This is an argument i have made supporting the legality of gay rights.

1. A state that is not compelled by divine law, can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.
2. While it is true that in the eyes of Christianity homosexual behavior does not fulfill the moral virtue of a human being teleologically speaking, it is not evident on pragmatic or utilitarian grounds that gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay couples is immoral. The state cannot recognize moral values that transcend pragmatic or utilitarian considerations.
3. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights
4. Therefore the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples because…
5. Any possible moral errors in respect of divinity are beyond the knowledge of the state, and thus the state is invincibly ignorant to any divine testimony or authority.
6. Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

Conclusion: Therefore if you support the split between church and state, you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary.

If you have to justify it, you know it’s wrong.

 

[sinnseanair]

Render unto Caeser that which is Caesers, and to God that which is Gods.

We live in a free country governed by the rule of law, not the rule of any church or religion. That being understood, I have some legal questions.

If a gay man kills a straight man for being straight, Is this also considered a “Hate crime” under the law?.

If two gay persons are married and one physically assaults the other, it is still called “domestic violence” under the law?

If a gay person sexually assaults a straight person is it still considered to be “rape” under the law?

I do not ask these questions to be flippant. I ask because we are entering a new reality that the Law of the Land is just far behind.

It appears to me that justice being equal, laws should be just as equal.

Canon Law of the Church is built on faith and tradition, but civil law is built on equality to ensure both freedom and protection of that freedom for all.

 

[sedonaman]

The topic of this thread is, " Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights." The discussion so far has centered on the claim that SS"M" is already a right that they are being denied. Homosexuals have all the rights that the rest have, i.e., free speech, voting, property ownership, etc. Before discussing whether homosexuals should have the “right” to marry, it should be proven that marriage is a right in the first place. To date, no one has.