Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[Mudgely]

Marriage is a State institution that belongs with the States and there is zero constitutional authority for a federal court to question or intervene.
The problem with modern equal protection arguments is activists and judges confuse equal protection with equal rights.
God bless.

I disagree. Marriage is a contract, and therefore while States confer marriages, the Federal Government plays a role in Constitutional issues related to contractual rights, equal protection rights (including race and gender rights). The US Constitution trumps State law in many aspects of marriage.

For example, IN FACT the courts have ruled DADT to be a violation of the US Constitution because it confers unequal legal status on legally married parties based on gender and sexuality. This is an example of the Constitution taking precedence in a state conferred marriage, even to the extent that it overturns Federal law.

In addition, marriage is considered to be a constitutionally protected right at least since slavery was abolished in the US. Additionally, miscegenation laws which were enacted at the state level were overturned by Federal courts.

Also, I would point out that the State of Utah repealed polygamy laws under threat of Federal prosecution.

 

[Mudgely]

You are talking to a brick wall.

Thanks for the pointer. Even if there is a brick wall, there are others who read the thread. So, it is not an entirely wasted effort.

 

[Mudgely]

Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural law.

God bless.

“Natural Law” is neither natural, nor is it law. It is a human invention, and so of little relevance to this discussion, unless of course you are contending that we should live as Aristotle would tell us to, who btw was not unfamiliar with homosexuality. Yet, he is the first known person to talk about Natural Law which Christianity later adopted and elaborated upon. The concept predates Christianity, and was first elucidated to the best of our knowledge by someone who had no objection to homosexual practices.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mudgely
**
When you make these arguments, keep in mind that you sound a lot like people who were opposed to inter-racial marriage. It was obvious to them that such marriages were unnatural. They were quite clear on that. What seems so obvious now, was not so obvious then. **

No such thing. The male and female parts fit, no matter the color. Racial bigotry cannot be equated with the censure of sodomy. The anus was not made for sex. You know very well what it was made for, and the thought of using it for anything else is simply disgusting, as anyone with common sense could tell you.

The thought of killing the unborn is even more disgusting. Would you say that mothers have the right just because they claim the right? If so, you would be denying a right to life.

Would you say that incest is right, and incestuous marriages ought to be made legal just because brothers and sisters want to get married?

Would you say that men and women should be allowed multiple marriage partners (polygamy) just because they want them?

 

[mtbender]

You are talking to a brick wall.

A shared feeling I assure you…

 

[Mudgely]

Mudgely
**
When you make these arguments, keep in mind that you sound a lot like people who were opposed to inter-racial marriage. It was obvious to them that such marriages were unnatural. They were quite clear on that. What seems so obvious now, was not so obvious then. **

No such thing. The male and female parts fit, no matter the color. Racial bigotry cannot be equated with the censure of sodomy. The anus was not made for sex. You know very well what it was made for, and the thought of using it for anything else is simply disgusting, as anyone with common sense could tell you.

You missed the point. Try again. In fact you proved my point. You sound identical to the folks who opposed inter-racial marriage. The races were not meant to intermingle. The idea was so disgusting that any “normal” person would be repelled by the idea. I am not exaggerating. Your argument is identical. You sound like a racist. Just substitute a few words.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mudgely

**You sound like a racist. Just substitute a few words. **

And you sound like a child. Grow up!

 

[Mudgely]

Mudgely

**You sound like a racist. Just substitute a few words. **

And you sound like a child. Grow up!

No, I sound like someone who has a sense of history, and also a sense of the expansion of human rights.

Spurious and unfounded claims such as yours make you appear to be even more a bigot.

I would suggest that bigots are the immature ones, not those who embrace the human condition and human dignity. You are the one who needs to grow. But you don’t have to. You may choose to become bitter instead as society continues to progress and you choose not to.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mudgely

Spurious and unfounded claims such as yours make you appear to be even more a bigot.

About all you’re good for at this point is ad hominems.:tsktsk: Take a course in logic and we’ll talk later. So long.

 

[Mudgely]

Mudgely

Spurious and unfounded claims such as yours make you appear to be even more a bigot.

About all you’re good for at this point is ad hominems.:tsktsk: Take a course in logic and we’ll talk later. So long.

I can’t change you, nor would I want to. You must live with yourself. Society is moving on. You will need to deal with that. Your issues are not my problem. It is curious that you make your problems a personal attack on others.

I was only addressing the legal issues here. You wanted to make it personal. At this point you are on ignore until you can depersonalize your discussion and keep it factual instead of personal.

Your personal issues are not my concern.

 

[mo3]

“Natural Law” is neither natural, nor is it law. It is a human invention,

If you reject natural law, and I assume you reject Divine Revelation on the topic of gay marriage, then you have no objective logical reasoning to support legalizing gay marriages.

God bless.

 

[Mudgely]

Mudgely
“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding” Plato

Would you please provide the source of that quote? I have read a lot of Plato, but have not found that one. I suspect that it is a fabrication. Though Plato did have much to say on the topic.

 

[mo3]

I am only going to ask you this question once. If you don’t answer this question directly, I am going to ignore you from this point forward.

1. Can you vote against mixed marriages in America?

I answered your question directly and quickly. It would be nice if you afforded me the same courtesy.

Please answer this question directly, yes or no.

Would you vote for a law that would make abortion illegal 100% of the time?

God bless.

 

[Mudgely]

I answered your question directly and quickly. It would be nice if you afforded me the same courtesy.

Please answer this question directly, yes or no.

Would you vote for a law that would make abortion illegal 100% of the time?

God bless.

Let me answer this absurd exchange. You can vote against racially mixed marriage. If you succeed, then the measure will be overturned.

This is exactly what is currently happening in the electoral process and the judicial process in the US over the gay marriage issue. We just don’t have the final decision yet.

 

[tonyrey]

“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding” Plato

No one seems to know the source!

 

[Mudgely]

No one seems to know the source!

I guess you take it on faith. Plato must have said it because i believe that he did.

 

[John21652]

“Natural Law” is neither natural, nor is it law. It is a human invention, and so of little relevance to this discussion, unless of course you are contending that we should live as Aristotle would tell us to, who btw was not unfamiliar with homosexuality. Yet, he is the first known person to talk about Natural Law which Christianity later adopted and elaborated upon. The concept predates Christianity, and was first elucidated to the best of our knowledge by someone who had no objection to homosexual practices.

Hey Mudgely, I see you are hurling around the insults again!
Before you do that you might want to get some of your basic facts right, otherwise no-one is going to take any notice of all the other stuff you write about.

You’re wrong about Natural Law.

Plato used the term long before Aristotle. You’ll find references to Natural Justice and Natural Law in his Gorgias at 483 and 484. If you want to go back even further to concepts of Natural Justice check out the Code of Hammurabi written about 1700BC. Then come forward and mention the Stoics, who developed Natural Law even more, then further more to the ancient Roman Jurists like Cicero and Sextus Pomponius. Then try the Byzantine Emperor Justinian who developed it even further and upon which our entire western legal and moral systems were built. So for you to blandly try to wipe natural law away with the broad sweep of whatever brush you use is not only ludicrous, but it also reeks of Hubris writ large.

As for homosexuality being familiar to Aristotle, so what. In the Nichomachean Ethics he described it as “brutality”. Plato wanted it outlawed. Your statement that Natural Law was first elucidated by someone who had no objection to homosexual practices is patently false.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If you reject natural law, and I assume you reject Divine Revelation on the topic of gay marriage, then you have no objective logical reasoning to support legalizing gay marriages.

God bless.

And neither does he or she necessarily have a reason to reject it either. Divine revelation counts for nothing in a secular court in matters such as these. People in general support gay marriage on pragmatic and sentimental grounds. And the government will probably want to avoid the appearance of oppressing a minority; especially after the fact of slavery and racism. Thus unless you can prove to a court of law that we do in fact exist in an objectively moral/teleological universe, you won’t have much luck in convincing them that sexuality only exists to serve the purpose of heterosexuality. In other words the concept of “Natural Law” itself needs defending. And what about those people who would argue that while an object is functionally ordered toward a particular end it does not mean that deviation from that end is “immoral”. You have to demonstrate the link between “teleological order” and what we “ought to do” morally speaking. You have done none of this. You have only made assertions.

None of you are being realistic. You should start doing comedy because its a joke if you really think that if enough people vote its going to change things. The solution to the problem is not as easy as you are making it out to be. Touting “natural law” continuously doesn’t seem to be helping anyone. Its hard enough trying to change the atheism of people on this forum, let alone convince a court that Natural law exists. That’s precisely why I have been arguing that institutionalised homosexuality is inevitable given the split between church and state. Maybe we should spend more time trying to preserve the right to publicly express our faith so that we can at least reach the souls of some people rather than trying to stop the inevitable. If I am wrong about that, fair enough.

That does not mean that I believe in homosexuality and gay marriage. I don’t even believe that the “gay identity” is a real objective reality or nature because I don’t believe that sexual identity objectively begins with attraction. But I do think it will be next to impossible trying to convince a secular court of those facts. That’s just being realistic, I just think that some of you are completely oblivious to the fundamental nature of the legal system in America, and what the split between church and state actually means for the future influence of Christianity in general. We need to prepare for the inevitable instead of wasting precious time.

Unless homosexuality goes back on the mentally ill list, homosexual marriage (immoral or not) is a done deal.

 

[mo3]

Let me answer this absurd exchange. You can vote against racially mixed marriage. If you succeed, then the measure will be overturned.

This is exactly what is currently happening in the electoral process and the judicial process in the US over the gay marriage issue. We just don’t have the final decision yet.

Would you vote for a law that would make abortion illegal 100% of the time?

Is your answer yes or no?

 

[Jaroslaw]

#222 & Charlemagne

There was so much to read between 222 and here, I may have forgotten exactly what you said. I do remember you saying something like “forcing the homosexual lifestyle” on others.

Look, when women got the right to vote, slavery ended, interracial marriages were allowed, children were stopped from working in factories, script was outlawed, and a million other things were legislated, all of these things were “forced” on the public. So I really don’t like that choice of terms. No one is forcing you to be a homosexual or perform homosexual acts, no one is forcing the Catholic Church (or any Church) to marry homosexuals, no one is forcing you to teach your children homosexuality is okay. Any more than prostitution is okay, simply because is it legal in Nevada. BUT as I have been trying to say since the very beginning, I don’t think a loving, committed, caring relationship falls in the same categories of crimes against other persons; homosexual couples work, pay taxes, have children etc. (No one yet has answered the question do children of homosexual couples deserve less rights than children of unmarried couples or children from married households?)

My question was pretty clear, I thought - do you think by outlawing homosexual marriages you are somehow preserving the family? How? Are you preventing anyone from being homosexual? Or are you just preventing homosexual couples from sharing in the societal benefits that other married couples get? It seems rather one sided to talk about morals when no one here has suggested that divorce be completely illegal. Or how about one should forfeit all the benefits that go with marriage if you marry twice, three times, four times etc.?

Lastly, Charlemagne - a number of societies have allowed same sex marriage - in fact there was a married (American) Indian man (married to another man) named Mi Wha who visited the White House in the early 1900’s. Indians of course, had their own laws, and their society conceived of a third sex that didn’t quite fit man or woman, and he/she was called a Berdache.