Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[Sacred_Heart_1]

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.

Let’s turn it around. Can you prove that it is not a right? Please, take into account that marriage is not an act in the Christian Religion alone. There is precedence of same sex marriage and unions throughout history. It is not a new-American issue.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

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.

If it is proven that a man is guilty for his intent then that proof finds him guilty and convicted under the law, regardless of his sexuality or race or gender, etc…Equality under the law is ideal and most of the time it occurs (unless your a celebrity).

 

[sedonaman]

Let’s turn it around. …

Let’s not. We’ve been bamboozled by that game for too long. The burden of proof is on the advocate of change … period.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Let’s not. We’ve been bamboozled by that game for too long. The burden of proof is on the advocate of change … period.

Logic begins to show rights.

If a man and woman are two consenting adults

and they have the right to get married

then it is also true that two consenting adults have the right to get married.

homosexuals are two consenting adults.

Therefore, homosexuals have the right to get married.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Let’s not. We’ve been bamboozled by that game for too long. The burden of proof is on the advocate of change … period.

Does this mean you have no (good) argument for why it is not a right?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

You didn’t demonstrate anything. You asserted it. Also if a group of people decide that society should be run on a pragmatic basis then that to is an “ideal”. It not difficult. You are ignoring the fact we are discussing the theoretical and epistemological limitations that are intrinsic to the split between the state and religion. We are not talking about what governments do.

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

You are ignoring the context. You were applying the golden rule in the context of people working together in-order to practically benefit each-other materially speaking; at least thats how it appeared since any other use of the word is meaningless without religion. The golden rule in this context is clearly pragmatic in nature.

There is a subtle difference between state pragmatism, and Christs analogous use of a pragmatic idea. When Christ speaks of the golden rule, he meant it in the sense that we “ought” to recognize the objective moral value we perceive in ourselves in other people; and that the golden rule is a good measuring stick in terms of knowing how we should treat Gods creation. Its not simply a matter of reciprocity; but rather it is posed in the context of understanding the true value of other people and how one should treat them regardless of what you receive in return. Its about knowing how to fulfill Gods commandments. Well you wouldn’t treat your self like **** if you love yourself, so you shouldn’t treat others like **** if you truly love your neighbor, and to love your neighbor is what God commands us to do. The golden rule in this context implies more than its pragmatic consequences.

“Context” is something you seem willing to ignore when it suites you. The state has no true knowledge of objective moral values. It has knowledge of practical and utilitarian benefits only in the sense of reciprocity. The principle of reciprocity (you scratch my back and i will scratch yours) is the only meaningful sense of pragmatism that can be applied outside of a religious context.

 

[WinterLight]

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

This premise requires justification. To the contrary, I claim that all legislation is the codification of morality. The only question is: whose morality?

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.

This depends on the truth of 1, which has been contested. But, even if 1 is accepted, it is not clear that there are no “pragmatic or utilitarian” arguments against gay marriage or adoption .

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

It is not clear that premise 3 follows from premise 1 and 2. As a counterexample, imagine a society entirely ignorant of moral law (unrealistic perhaps but that’s irrelevant to this construction). It is possible that they could construct a legal code identical to the (unknown) moral code. In that case, moral rights and legal rights are equivalent, even though the authors of the legal rights did not design them with that intent.

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

I don’t believe the “therefore.” Suppose that I agree with 1 and 2. Then I’m barred from making laws based solely on moral law; if I enact a law, then it must be based on “pragmatic” or “utilitarian” considerations only. There might be such considerations that would justify the banning of gay marriage or adoption.

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.

I might agree with this if I knew what it meant. One point, though, an abstraction (like the “state”) does not possess knowledge: you’re fallaciously personifying an abstract object. You might, however, argue that the knowledge of the state is the union of the people that comprise the state. I’m not sure that I agree with that either. You’ll have to convince me of it.

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

I don’t believe the “thus”: it’s not clear that it follows from the previous premises. I don’t even accept it as a premise: it is possible (however unlikely) that the people who comprise the state agree on every issue. You have to rule out that possibility and I don’t think that as a matter of logic only (that is, without appeal to considerations external to logic) you can do this.

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 believe the “therefore.” Even if I accept premises 1 through 6, I don’t see that the conclusion follows from the premises. It’s not a sound argument; worse still, it’s not even valid. Let’s suppose, however, that the conclusion is true. All you’ve proven is a conditional statement. You haven’t proven that “you have to support gay rights despite any moral beliefs to the contrary” but only that this must follow if “you support the split between church and state.”

I don’t intend to be snarky, but since your argument is rife with elementary errors you should consider taking a course in logic or studying a good textbook on logic. I’m glad to recommend books if you’re interested.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t intend to be snarky, but since your argument is rife with elementary errors you should consider taking a course in logic or studying a good textbook on logic. I’m glad to recommend books if you’re interested.

Nothing you have said is worthy of consideration.

 

[JRKH]

Nothing you have said is worthy of consideration.

This comment is entirely false. Winterlight’s post contained a great deal that is worthy of consideration.

But since you are unwilling accept challenges to your premises no further useful conversation can be had.

Peace
James

 

[swanlinnet]

Sorry “Mind Over Matter” …I would have to give your feeble attempt at making your name in the realm of Political Philosophy a fail.

Your logic, or lack of understanding logic, is the reason why you and your ‘argument’ fall down.

Sorry that I haven’t the time to give you a critical breakdown on just where you have gone astray since your ‘treatise’ violates so many simple, philosophical, principles I would be here half the night typing them out.

Nice attempt though.

Vince

 

[Sair]

MoM,

“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.”

Since when is the pragmatic conviction that we will live in a better world less of a justification for enforcing the already subjectively felt value of human beings than the hoped-for-but-never-found evidence of objective moral right? Would you rather live in a world in which people whose objective value was open to dispute - such as slaves - were subjected to torture and degradation, than a world in which we recognise that every person is capable of subjectively valuing his/her own existence to some degree? Since you claim objective value based apparently on nothing more than the subjective inclinations of an anthropomorphic god, I don’t see that you have a leg to stand on in disputing or denigrating the pragmatic (and sympathetic) approach of the modern democratic state.

 

[Sair]

Sinnseanair,

Can’t vouch for everywhere, but in my country:

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

I don’t know of a particular incident, but if intent can be established - as it must be in other cases of hate crime - then yes, it would be considered so.

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

Yes.

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

Yes. Even if a gay person assaults another gay person.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MoM,
Would you rather live in a world in which people whose objective value was open to dispute - such as slaves - were subjected to torture and degradation, than a world in which we recognize that every person is capable of subjectively valuing his/her own existence to some degree? Since you claim objective value based apparently on nothing more than the subjective inclinations of an anthropomorphic god, I don’t see that you have a leg to stand on in disputing or denigrating the pragmatic (and sympathetic) approach of the modern democratic state.

When you learn to stop making straw-men of my posts and beliefs, i might…i just might start responding to you again.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sorry “Mind Over Matter” …I would have to give your feeble attempt at making your name in the realm of Political Philosophy a fail.

Your logic, or lack of understanding logic, is the reason why you and your ‘argument’ fall down.

Sorry that I haven’t the time to give you a critical breakdown on just where you have gone astray since your ‘treatise’ violates so many simple, philosophical, principles I would be here half the night typing them out.

Nice attempt though.

Vince

Trolling is not a virtue

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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

Whats that got to do with the legalization of homosexuality. In future, if you feel threatened by something, give it to God instead wasting my time.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This comment is entirely false. Winterlight’s post contained a great deal that is worthy of consideration.

But since you are unwilling accept challenges to your premises no further useful conversation can be had.

Peace
James

I have been debating for long time. I know when somebody has properly read and understood the argument. And i know when somebody is responding with a desire to understand what the person has said, and when a person already thinks they know better. I know when somebody is trolling. Nothing he has written suggests to me that he is either understood or cares to understand it. Neither does it appear that he even took the time to read it properly despite what any merit his post has. I just refuse to make the effort to explain my position when others refuse to understand it. Most of the responses on this thread are not coming from a good place; regardless of whether or not they have validity, and i refuse to entertain it. I have no time to waste on such people.

You can follow him down that road to if you so wish.

I have presented my argument. If you don’t like it, you can agree to disagree.

Peace and God-bless

 

[Philotheatoo]

This kind of says it all:

Do you have a reading problem?

MindOverMatter, I will devote a quarter of my Adoration Hour to your enlightenment.

God bless you too.

 

[inocente]

“Context” is something you seem willing to ignore when it suites you. The state has no true knowledge of objective moral values. It has knowledge of practical and utilitarian benefits only in the sense of reciprocity. The principle of reciprocity (you scratch my back and i will scratch yours) is the only meaningful sense of pragmatism that can be applied outside of a religious context.

The context is that unless we believe scripture reveals clear guidance directly dictated by God on every possible moral issue, we cannot say with any certainty that we know what God wants us to do apart from follow our conscience to the best of our ability.

Religions don’t agree on knowable objective moral values, and so there is no prima facie case that any given religion’s ethics are automatically superior to any others or to purely secular ethics. In that sense the state could even transcend religions to produce a new synthesis. For example, the first preamble of the secular UDHR “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” can also be found, rather more poetically, in Psalm 133: “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity! It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down on the collar of his robe. It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion. For there the LORD bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.”

In both cases we have an exhortation to brotherly love for its own sake, or as UDHR Article 1 has it: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. Gay rights can be argued direct from that aspiration.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

It cannot possibly have a religious role thats for sure.

And why? They declare themselves as a religion…What is the criteria to be a religion?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

Thats fair enough. However the government and the people obviously see state marriage as beneficial to the pragmatic growth of society as a whole in terms of equality, just as much as they see equality itself as a pragmatic benefit to society as a whole.

Beyond religious conviction and personal belief, there is no grounds to deny gay people the right to state marriage. What ever you think about homosexuality itself, its consensual, and there is no evidence that it will cause harm to society beyond religious conviction and unjustified prejudice. So long as the government supports state marriage, the onus is on you to provide pragmatic grounds for why gays should not have the same right.

It is not evident to me that there is.