Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[MindOverMatter2]

This kind of says it all:

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

God bless you too.

Do as you please. But you have not addressed my argument.

This is just an ad-hominem attack disguised as a virtuous rebuke.

I wonder what that says about you? Please add a portion of that prayer time to your own flaws.

Godbless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

Please save this for another thread. I am talking about the intrinsic consequences of their being a split between state and religion. I recognize rights as pragmatically introduced in a society that does not dictate law according to religious belief.

Also the Catholic faith is not produced by the bible. But rather the Bible is understood and interpreted according to Divine Catholic Tradition. I don’t believe in sola scripture. We are not Protestants.

 

[Philotheatoo]

Oh, my goodness! I always do! My own flaws are much greater, I assure you.

 

[sedonaman]

…
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.

Then you obviously haven’t watched the lecture in my post #15, which tells me you are no more interested in what others have to say than those you accuse of the same thing.

 

[sedonaman]

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.

Pettie Burch speaks French. Pettie Burch goes to the University of California. Therefore, everyone who goes to the University of California speaks French.

– “Love is a Fallacy” by Max Schuleman

 

[WinterLight]

MindOverMatter2, a criticism of an argument is not an ad hominem attack. If you were truly interested in constructing a sound argument, then you would take heed of our advice. Some of us, after all, have studied or taught logic.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter2, a criticism of an argument is not an ad hominem attack. If you were truly interested in constructing a sound argument, then you would take heed of our advice. Some of us, after all, have studied or taught logic.

The assumption is of course that I don’t know logic. I know full well what a genuine criticism is and I will answer a criticism if it demonstrates itself as coming from an honest understanding of the subject, and not a pretence to understand. The argument I have constructed is sound so long as you stick to the context where I am arguing about the intrinsic consequences of a split between state and religion. Of course if you decide to distort the context, then the appearance of error is bound to satisfy.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and asserting that you know better.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Then you obviously haven’t watched the lecture in my post #15, which tells me you are no more interested in what others have to say than those you accuse of the same thing.

I am just following the logic. Can you demonstrate a pragmatic reason or not? If not, keep your opinions to yourself cause I am not interested.

 

[WinterLight]

The argument I have constructed is sound so long as you stick to the context where I am arguing about the intrinsic consequences of a split between state and religion.

You’re correct to suggest that soundness depends on context; still, you can’t expect people to swallow whatever premise you toss out–you have to justify each premise. The main problem, however, is that your argument isn’t even valid, that is, even if we accept your premises without question, the conclusion does not necessarily follow. You should familiarize yourself (or refresh your memory, perhaps) with the technical terms “valid” and “sound”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You’re correct to suggest that soundness depends on context; still, you can’t expect people to swallow whatever premise you toss out–you have to justify each premise. The main problem, however, is that your argument isn’t even valid, that is, even if we accept your premises without question, the conclusion does not necessarily follow. You should familiarize yourself (or refresh your memory, perhaps) with the technical terms “valid” and “sound”.

Asserting things don’t make it true. Consider this the last time that I will respond to you.

 

[WinterLight]

Asserting things don’t make it true.

Quite, quite. In fact, that’s partially my point.

 

[sedonaman]

I am just following the logic. Can you demonstrate a pragmatic reason or not? If not, keep your opinions to yourself cause I am not interested.

The videos demonstrate pragmatic, non-religious, logical reasons. You just don’t want to hear them. That’s why you are not interested.

Are you some kind of forum administrator who sets the rules for posting? If not, keep your rules to yourself because I will continue to express my views on this forum whether you like them or not.

 

[bmullins]

Is it just me or do you tend to dismiss anything anyone says if it doesn’t agree with your premise?

 

[RCIA4]

The videos demonstrate pragmatic, non-religious, logical reasons. You just don’t want to hear them. That’s why you are not interested.

Are you some kind of forum administrator who sets the rules for posting? If not, keep your rules to yourself because I will continue to express my views on this forum whether you like them or not.

Come on guys don’t fight… Be charitable… It would be a shame if an admin actually did have to close such a lively debate

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The videos demonstrate pragmatic, non-religious, logical reasons.

If that is truly the case then you can give a quick summary here. Links to a video is hardly an argument, and I am not going to waste my time with them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**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 so. All civilizations, not just the Christian ones, have opposed gay marriage rights. Aristotle and Plato, who were not Christians but were secularist philosophers, regarded homosexuality as unnatural. In fact, no civilization before ours has even demanded them. This is a sign that our civilization is depraved and completely without common sense.

So my question to you is:

What obligation does the State have to honor depraved and ridiculous demands?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is it just me or do you tend to dismiss anything anyone says if it doesn’t agree with your premise?

I merely dismiss the straw-men, the red herrings, and contextual errors that keep spouting up everywhere on this forum.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Not so. All civilizations, not just the Christian ones, have opposed gay marriage rights.

Where do I speak about what governments have done or actually do on this thread? And why does it mean that just because a government has historically been against something, that therefore it is the correct course of action in terms of equality?

Its really bizarre that you and others have failed to grasp the context of this debate and yet you all think you know something that I don’t.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What obligation does the State have to honor depraved and ridiculous demands?

It first has to be evident that such demands are depraved and ridiculous. If pragmatism is the only basis on which one can judge a thing good or bad for society then the fact that something is traditionally viewed as morally wrong isn’t relevant.

 

[WinterLight]

**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 so. All civilizations, not just the Christian ones, have opposed gay marriage rights. Aristotle and Plato, who were not Christians but were secularist philosophers, regarded homosexuality as unnatural. In fact, no civilization before ours has even demanded them. This is a sign that our civilization is depraved and completely without common sense.

So my question to you is:

What obligation does the State have to honor depraved and ridiculous demands?

You make some excellent points, but strictly speaking you don’t need to make them. The conclusion is a conditional statement (if A, then B). For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the conclusion follows from the premises. So what? The OP still hasn’t proved what he wanted to prove, namely, that you must support “gay rights”. No, he’s “proven” that if you support “separation of church and state” then you must support “gay rights”.

To illustrate what I mean, consider the following conditional statement: “If 5 is an even number, then 4 is an odd number.” Every logician will tell you that this is a true statement. You might ask: how can this be? is not the conclusion absurd? Yes, the conclusion is false; but so is the hypothesis. A conditional statement with a false hypothesis is automatically true (we call it “vacuously” true).

You can (loosely) think of conditional statements as promises: if you do A, then I’ll do B. The only instance in which I’ve broken promise is when in fact you do A but I fail to do B. If you don’t do A, then I might be a nice guy and do B anyway; but I still have kept my word if I don’t do B.