Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[ThinkingSapien]

Marriage IS a religious institution, not a political one.

What does that mean given that neither religion nor a religious institution are needed for some one to become married?

 

[RCIA4]

Personally I can support “some” of gay rights…

I don’t think I could bring myself to support gay marriage but I can definitely get behind anti-bullying laws, discrimination protections, and hate crimes laws…

Let me explain… Just because someone says their “gay” doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re sexually active or in a relationship…

I don’t think someone has the right to fire someone just on the basis of them being gay. I mean if you no nothing about their private life then that’s just downright wrong to fire them. You don’t know whether they’re celibate, sexually active. or w/e… That’s discrimination…

I don’t think Johnny the good little altar boy has a right to go up to his school’s resident homosexual and tell him he’s an abomination and is damned to hell… Telling anyone that is bullying in my book…

That’s way different than just saying homosexuality is a sin…

I’ll probably get flak for this but this is a social justice thing…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Personally I can support “some” of gay rights…

I don’t think I could bring myself to support gay marriage but I can definitely get behind anti-bullying laws, discrimination protections, and hate crimes laws…

Let me explain… Just because someone says their “gay” doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re sexually active or in a relationship…

I don’t think someone has the right to fire someone just on the basis of them being gay. I mean if you no nothing about their private life then that’s just downright wrong to fire them. You don’t know whether they’re celibate, sexually active. or w/e… That’s discrimination…

I don’t think Johnny the good little altar boy has a right to go up to his school’s resident homosexual and tell him he’s an abomination and is damned to hell… Telling anyone that is bullying in my book…

That’s way different than just saying homosexuality is a sin…

I’ll probably get flak for this but this is a social justice thing…

I agree with you.

Just because a person supports “gay rights” in a political context, does not necessarily mean they support homosexual activity as a moral right. There is a subtle but real difference. I don’t believe that its a moral right to have sex before marriage; but I certainly don’t believe that it should be made illegal, and you certainly won’t see me protesting for the criminalisation of those who have premarital sex!!! In a similar vein, neither will you see me protesting against gay marriage.

I do feel that gay marriage is the logical consequence of a secular system that is free of divine command. However, I do reject homosexual activity on moral/teleological grounds. In reality a gay marriage is automatically not a real marriage in the Catholic sense of the word despite being sponsored by the state (according to the Catholic definition, there may very well be a civil union in process, but a “marriage” is not actually taking place in the true sense of the word; only in appearance). But it is not evident to me that I can reject civil unions between members of the same sex on legal grounds. Legally, it seems arbitrary and unjustified pragmatically speaking.

 

[RCIA4]

I agree with you.

Just because a person supports “gay rights” in a political context, does not necessarily mean they support homosexual activity as a moral right. There is a subtle but real difference. I don’t believe that its a moral right to have sex before marriage; but I certainly don’t believe that it should be made illegal, and you certainly won’t see me protesting for the criminalisation of those who have premarital sex!!! In a similar vein, neither will you see me protesting against gay marriage.

I do feel that gay marriage is the logical consequence of a secular system that is free of divine command. However, I do reject homosexual activity on moral/teleological grounds. In reality a gay marriage is automatically not a real marriage in the Catholic sense of the word despite being sponsored by the state (according to the Catholic definition, there may very well be a civil union in process, but a “marriage” is not actually taking place in the true sense of the word; only in appearance). But it is not evident to me that I can reject civil unions between members of the same sex on legal grounds. Legally, it seems arbitrary and unjustified pragmatically speaking.

agreed

 

[DCNBILL]

That sounds like a good idea, but…
Are you saying that it’s the word “marriage” that is most upsetting for Christians when it comes to gay marriage? That Catholics would not have a problem with gay people having a civil union?

Actually, the several dictionary definition of “marriage” I looked at doesn’t mention God, but only law. Here’s the main M-Webster one:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife i*n a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law *(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

And neither does the encyclopedia:

“…a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.”

So it looks like the definition of marriage already is defined as such?

In the Catholic Church Marriage has always been a Sacrament.

From the Catholic Catechism Section 2 Chapter 3

ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

What secular society does is its own business but redefining terms that have and always had a particular meaning does not change the way the Church will view things.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mind

**It first has to be evident that such demands are depraved and ridiculous. **

No it doesn’t. This has always been assumed to be true by every civilization. It is the requirement of the pragmatist to prove that sodomy is not depraved and ridiculous.

 

[Jaroslaw]

I never had a class in logic so I don’t know if I can fully participate in this debate, but I do want to point out something and go from there. Charlemagne has said at least twice "all civilizations have opposed “Gay rights/homosexuality” and mentioned “depraved demands.”

So, unless everything historical I’ve read so far is a complete lie, then his assertions are incorrect. If some societies approved of or tolerated homosexuality, however it was practiced, then does it also presume a religious component/approval of homosexuality? I don’t remember reading that (one way or the other) in most cases.

However, we do have separation of Church and State in the USA and the Constitution says men are created equal. From what I read about same sex marriage in books by law professors, all the reasons for supporting hetero marriage apply to same sex marriage also, including raising children (which could be from a former straight union or adoption). Further, in a context of equality, and freedom, the state is, in theory at least, supposed to produce the least restrictive laws to accomplish the desired goals, as fairly as possible.

The idea that Gay people existed at all, as an orientation, is not universally accepted yet, rather many still perceive homosexuality only marginally, concentrating on the sex act itself to exclusion of all else… Perhaps this (partially) explains why the idea of Gay rights/marriage has taken so long to get to where it is today. Obviously, despite the secular nature of the Constitution, the government of the USA acted as Christian for a very long time as well.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with you.

Just because a person supports “gay rights” in a political context, does not necessarily mean they support homosexual activity as a moral right. There is a subtle but real difference. I don’t believe that its a moral right to have sex before marriage; but I certainly don’t believe that it should be made illegal, and you certainly won’t see me protesting for the criminalisation of those who have premarital sex!!! In a similar vein, neither will you see me protesting against gay marriage.

I do feel that gay marriage is the logical consequence of a secular system that is free of divine command. However, I do reject homosexual activity on moral/teleological grounds. In reality a gay marriage is automatically not a real marriage in the Catholic sense of the word despite being sponsored by the state (according to the Catholic definition, there may very well be a civil union in process, but a “marriage” is not actually taking place in the true sense of the word; only in appearance). But it is not evident to me that I can reject civil unions between members of the same sex on legal grounds. Legally, it seems arbitrary and unjustified pragmatically speaking.

We have to be realistic. Jesus knew slavery was wrong but he also knew it was a waste of time trying to transform the political and social system overnight. He also knew He wouldn’t have time to fulfil His mission if He gave His enemies an opportunity to report Him to the Roman authorities for preaching sedition and revolution. They eventually did so anyway but at least He had three years in which to establish a community and attract followers, mainly in Galilee and to a lesser extent in Samaria. It was when he went to Judea that He was finally arrested outside Jerusalem and executed on a false pretext .

Similarly in a secular society it is folly to attempt to impose Christian morality by legislation on matters which are not contrary to the law of the land or to the UDHR. Abortion is undoubtedly an evil but when the majority believe it is justified on grounds we don’t accept it is not only futile but wrong to attack clinics and threaten the staff.
Even though we are not in favour of homosexual marriage we have to respect the rights of others to live according to the dictates of their conscience - with the provisos I have mentioned. The secular state is sometimes intolerant of Catholic practices in the name of tolerance but that is not a good reason for descending to the same level…

 

[preferanonymous]

MindOverMatter2: Below are comments to your argument.

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

I am not sure what you mean by compelled by divine law. I think some might hold that the natural law is such that its truth can be accessed by all men without appeal to that which cannot be publicly justified. Hence, I do not see why one cannot make judgments based upon the natural law concerning matters of public policy if one can give rational justifications for those beliefs.

“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.”

This premise is only true if we accept one. For if the natural law were something one could use to decide political matters, and gay marriage was found to be contrary to the natural law, why would it follow that a prohibition of gay marriage is beyond the power of the state?

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

I might agree that moral rights are not the same as legal rights. But I do not think one needs to be a pluralist to say this. Suppose one were to rationally know the truth, and in understanding this truth realize that it would not be just to make it such that every immoral behavior was illegal. Knowledge of the good would be the force of this separation between the legal and the moral, not a skepticism about it. Why would it be impossible for one to be for limited government and a rejection of theocracy without being a pluralist or skeptic?

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

I think this conclusion is not true at least given premise 1 and premise 2’s reliance on it.

“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.”

I think I might here ask why one cannot rationally understand morality in a way that is not publicly justifiable.

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

I don’t think the state needs to be pluralistic to be one which embodies limited government. And, I do think it can oppose things based on religion or belief in so far as those views can be rationally justified. If the view is rational, why shouldn’t it be one which is the basis for public policy?

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

Consider this view: the truth, which we can know by reason, tells us that the truth about God is so special that to coerce man into believing it would be unjust. Yet, on this view, gay-marriage is an institution that the state has no reason to recognize. This view would then reject theocracy and not support gay marriage. Where is the contradiction?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Mind

**It first has to be evident that such demands are depraved and ridiculous. **

No it doesn’t. This has always been assumed to be true by every civilization. It is the requirement of the pragmatist to prove that sodomy is not depraved and ridiculous.

Its irrelevant. People assume a lot of things. This is not a matter of what people traditionally believed. If people traditionally assumed that its okay to sacrifice every third child, this to me would not be sufficient enough reason to enact this in law. In any case, the State cannot rationally assume as true the moral/religious beliefs of Christianity if there is truly a split between state and religion; and neither can they assume as true the beliefs of any other religion or people. Moral truth and what it means for something to be morally true is also a belief; and people have different ideas about what that word means. You have given no good pragmatic reason to put your beliefs over somebody else’s. Neither can the state truly function on an “assumption” outside of pragmatic considerations since that would be arbitrary and therefore unjustified. This has certain consequences; it cannot hold one belief over another; accept in context of pragmatism (what best suites society as a “whole” on pragmatic grounds). In so far as that’s true, you have to show why the government should reject homosexual marriage and its distinction on pragmatic grounds. Any attempt to bring assumptions or moral beliefs in to the fray that do not have a pragmatic basis, will fall flat unless the state itself breaks its own rules.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

For if the natural law were something one could use to decide political matters, and gay marriage was found to be contrary to the natural law, why would it follow that a prohibition of gay marriage is beyond the power of the state?

If a ruling state could know without possibility of error or division, that teleology is a real self evident aspect of reality and can also show how “objective moral truth” follows rationally and necessarily from that fact; then such a state would be correct in producing laws based on that knowledge.

Since it is not self evident, and people are divided on what would constitute a genuine rational proof of objective morality, this is not a reliable ground upon which to base a law driven society of differing beliefs about morality. It is not clear that such arguments succeed even though there are those, who for the sake of changing law, claim they do succeed.

Every one can agree that they don’t want to be murdered, so laws exist to protect society against that. People can see that unity to an extent is better than disunity, so there are laws to protect society. There are things that people can generally agree on even though they disagree on other things due to their personal beliefs. If there is split between state and religion, then pragmatism is the only known rational basis by which people can make decisions about what’s best for human society or themselves individually, for better or worse. In terms of equality such states will try to determine law so that everybody can be treated as fairly as possible without taking away peoples right to personal religion or even beliefs about sexuality. And such a state is necessarily or inevitably pluralistic, and thus too there are laws to protect diversity in beliefs both moral or otherwise. This is not to say that there would not be disagreements about the moral justice of laws, but without clear evidence of objective moral truth no religion or people have a right to dictate what should be law on moral or religious grounds.

Out side of religion and divine revelation, it is not clear that very much but a minority believe that they can rationally and consistently determine objective right and wrong and that such a belief isn’t driven by dogma, assumptions, and self delusion.

Where there is a split between church and state, state law is blind to Gods commands, and it seems only a few people on this website can see that “secular law” is not Christian or moral law. If you see something in the law that you feel reflects your beliefs, this is purely coincidental of the fact that pragmatically derived rules most of the time coincide with Christian beliefs.

Now I understand that the state has often acted in contradiction to the principle of the state-religion division and the philosophical issues that follow. And I also understand that Christianity in some way shape or form has played a big part in bringing that division about. Many Christians support the split between church and state (even though they seem oblivious to the consequences). But this is besides the point and is irrelevant because so long as the split exists, the way that laws are made after that fact opens the gates wide open to gay marriage and gay adoption and institutionalises it.

 

[preferanonymous]

“If a ruling state could know without possibility of error or division, that teleology is a real self evident aspect of reality and can also show how “objective moral truth” follows rationally and necessarily from that fact; then such a state would be correct in producing laws based on that knowledge.”

So we agree here, though I do not think I said anything about teleology. I am not sure if a rational justification would need to be committed to this sort of outlook.

“Since it is not self evident, and people are divided on what would constitute a genuine rational proof of objective morality, this is not a reliable ground upon which to base a law driven society of differing beliefs about morality.”

“It is not clear that such arguments succeed even though there are those, who for the sake of changing law, claim they do succeed.”

“If there is split between state and religion, then pragmatism is the only known rational basis by which people can make decisions about what’s best for human society or themselves individually, for better or worse.”

“Out side of religion and divine revelation, it is not clear that very much but a minority believe that they can rationally and consistently determine objective right and wrong and that such a belief isn’t driven by dogma, assumptions, and self delusion.”

Can I ask what grounds you have for these claims? Have you refuted every natural law argument that attempts to provide such a rational justification for, let us say, the prohibition of gay marriage? When you say it is not clear that the arguments succeed, what arguments do you refer to and where do they go wrong? The fact that many might not believe that such arguments can be made does not mean they cannot be made- democracy does not determine whether the truths of reason are such truths.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What secular society does is its own business but redefining terms that have and always had a particular meaning does not change the way the Church will view things.

I think that doesn’t conflict with what is being discussed, as granting homosexuals the secular status of married doesn’t obligate religious institution to acknowledge one as married under the church.

I could see conflicts if a church employee announced she was gay and wanted health and other benefits for her partner though.

 

[John21652]

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.

This statement assumes that an objective moral standard must have a divine inspiration.

Unless that can be demonstrated, it is a mere assertion and affords no proof.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This statement assumes that an objective moral standard must have a divine inspiration.

Unless that can be demonstrated, it is a mere assertion and affords no proof.

An objective moral standard must have evidence of being real; having a real foundation in reality. Otherwise it has the same epistemological value as religion. Its a faith based belief; much of the time being an expression of some kind of religion or faith. In so far as the law must determine what is true, it follows that faith, belief, tradition, and culture, are not sufficient standards of truth in so far why a law should be made. Why should the law place one belief or the assumption of objective morality over another in terms of governance? How does the government know of the existence of objective morality? There is no rational basis for this. There is only one way to proceed rationally without prejudice, or the least of it, and that is pragmatism. Thus pragmatism is the only basis on which laws can be formed in a pluralistic society; thus laws are practical laws, not laws produced according to somebody faith, religion, culture, or tradition.

 

[John21652]

An objective moral standard must have evidence of being real; having a real foundation in reality. Otherwise it has the same epistemological value as religion. Its a belief; much of the time being an expression of some kind of religion or faith. In so far as the law must determine what is true, it follows that faith, belief, and culture, are not sufficient standards of truth. Why should the law place one belief over another in terms of governance?

No argument.

However, your answer doesn’t solve the problem with your asserted premise.
It needs proving/disproving on its own before it can be admitted as part of a syllogistic argument.

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

Let’s rephrase the statement as a question and explore a little, without accepting the inherent assumption in the -
Can a state that does not consider itself as being compelled by divine law find an objective standard of right, wrong and value which would be compelling?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No argument.

I am fully aware that you don’t have an argument. But thanks for pointing that out.

Can a state that does not consider itself as being compelled by divine law find an objective standard of right, wrong and value which would be compelling?

As soon as you prove that objective moral law exists and follows necessarily from some fact we experience in reality, get back to me.

Until then, that’s just something you have faith in. You believe in it, but your belief in it is not by itself a compelling argument.

Its not yet evident that you can produce such an argument. So why should the state accept your assertions or assumptions as a foundation to law? If you want the state or a people to believe that, then you must prove your case. The onus is on you.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

This argument is invalid due to it resting upon the fallacious premise of a separation of Church and State. The United States for example doesn’t actually have a separation of Church and State, the federal government is prohibited from establishing a state church like the CoE. This does not prevent churches from influencing the government

 

[John21652]

I am fully aware that you don’t have an argument. But thanks for pointing that out.

I meant no argument with what you wrote. However, if all you wish to do is score cheap shots, then by all means go for it. It makes you look rather silly though.

As soon as you prove that objective moral law exists and follows necessarily from some fact we experience in reality, get back to me.

If you think by sidestepping the original point I made, which is that your premise contained an assumption, somehow makes you look smart, it doesn’t. It makes you look obtuse and it makes it obvious for all to see you can’t address the glaring problem with your original argument…

Until then, that’s just something you have faith in. You believe in it, but your belief in it is not by itself a compelling argument.

I didn’t state any belief. Your original statement assumed one. I posed a question, in good faith. It appears you don’t handle being challenged very well.

Its not evident that you can produce such an argument. So why should that state accept you assertion or assumption as a foundation to law. If you want the state or a people to believe that, then you must prove your case. The onus is on you.

I posed a question. You attempting to turn that question into an argument is unbecoming and makes obvious your temperamental shortcomings. You have made yourself look rather foolish, because the original assumption in your first statement still stands.

Get over yourself.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I meant no argument with what you wrote. However, if all you wish to do is score cheap shots, then by all means go for it. It makes you look rather silly though.

What ever makes me laugh, I do. You are my play thing until I get bored.