Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights
- Status
M
mo3
Guest
This is not a logical meaningful answer. I challenged both of your premises and your responses lack a thoughtful reflection.
God bless.
M
mo3
Guest
In post #139, you made the claim my values are arbitrary. I understand it you want to withdraw your claim.
God bless.
God bless.
M
mo3
Guest
This is a non sequitur and not a response but avoidance of my arguments.
God bless.
S
sw85
Guest
He did not say Christian values are arbitrary – that is a silly claim to be making (obviously) since he is trying to defend them against secularists who say those values are not worthy of consideration in the public sphere.
He said that your belief in Christian values cannot be reconciled with your earlier claim, “Individuals have values and they should be respected regardless of the source.”
If it is true that all people have equally valid values than it follows that there is no reason for you to emphasize Christian ones. All value systems would be equally valuable and there would neither a way nor a reason to choose between them.
Of course if that’s not what you’re trying to say than perhaps you need to clarify.
M
mo3
Guest
We can respect others value without agreeing with them. Therefore my belief in Christian values is reconcilable since it is a Christian value to respect others.
I did not say “all people have equally valid values” but rather the values of individuals must be respected. That does not mean everyone’s values are equally valid.
God bless.
M
mo3
Guest
This conclusion cannot be derived from the premises presented in the OP. Nothing was presented in the OP to support the concept of a split between church and state. You are assuming that divine law can only come from those who are church members. Non church members can recognize divine law by studying the natural law.
Additionally, nowhere does the US constitution guarantee a separation of church and state.
God bless.
W
WinterLight
Guest
It is true.
Statistics has nothing to do with this argument.
You are misusing the technical term “necessary”. I explained above what this means.
I’m not suggesting anything. It’s quite possible that his conclusion is correct. In fact, I noted this previously in this thread. His premises, however, do not logically imply the conclusion. It is possible that there is a valid argument with this conclusion, only it is not his argument as given.
Semantics, the meaning of words, is everything. It is never a waste of time to learn to reason exactly. I recommend that you take a course in logic or pick up a decent textbook on the topic. The concepts I’ve discussed in this thread are fundamental to any discussion the participants of which seek truth and understanding rather than cheap victory and self-congratulation.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I agree.
I agree.
I agree.
application for society as a “whole” can be considered legally relevant. Its no wonder then that there is such a thing as legal “abortion”, or legal gay marriage, or legal adoption by gay couples.
I agree.
gay rights but you have a moral obligation to **respect **them even though you are convinced they do not correspond to reality!
By support, I do not mean moral support. I can agree that something ought to be legal according to legal definitions; but that does not mean I morally agree with it. A thing might have no moral grounds in terms of my belief, but legally speaking I can see that the state has no valid basis for asserting one religious authority over another. I mean only that if you support the split between church and state, you are by definition supporting the legal consequences of that fact.I agree!
Does that break a record on this forum?
On rereading I’m not sure what you mean by “biasly”…
D
DCNBILL
Guest
I would agree with this if the state used a different term than marriage for such a union, the confusion caused by calling such a union a “marriage” is the issue, due to the definition of the word throughout history.
S
sinnseanair
Guest
There is no such term as “Gay Rights”. There are only Homosexuals seeking to be recognized under our laws just as everyone else. The problem becomes one of law, not church. Our church has enough problems with this today with homosexual priests and nuns. So, the subject becomes one of recognition only, not preference.
In the Native American Nations, the term for homosexual is “birdage”. In the tribe everyone had to do their job for the tribe to survive. Therefore the woman wanting to be a man became a hunter and gatherer, while the man wanting to be a woman did the female daily chores along with the rest of the women.
Sense we have a hopefully close to sex equality in our nation’s laws, “birdage” does not apply to our present society. That being said, homosexuality remains a sin in almost religion in the modern world. That is just simple fact.
It is given that a governing body cannot legislate morality among the governed, although we are trying to argue just that.
All the glib of tongue and debate is not going to change the morals of our society, morals given to them by believing there is a God and his teaching are in a holy book. Therefore, this argument becomes moot. Homosexuals are as they are, and shall not change our society to fit their value system in the long term. We may have a wave of diversity today, but soon that wave will roll onto the beach and we will see it for what it is, just a small portion of a large ocean.
There will always be homosexuality. There always has been homosexuality. Why? Only God knows. However, the sanctification of homosexuality in our holy book never has nor does not exist and by extention of the Ten Commandmants of which our laws are based, will, nor should exist.
So Homosexuals being recognized as a race, sect, group, under the laws of our land may be happening today, but, just as that wave hitting the beach, that recognition will disappear in time, not my time or your time, but God’s time. For God has already explained that Homosexuality is a sin, along with killing, coveting, and having other gods before him. it is said by Commandmant to “Honor thy Father and Mother,” not father and father or mother and mother.
In the Native American Nations, the term for homosexual is “birdage”. In the tribe everyone had to do their job for the tribe to survive. Therefore the woman wanting to be a man became a hunter and gatherer, while the man wanting to be a woman did the female daily chores along with the rest of the women.
Sense we have a hopefully close to sex equality in our nation’s laws, “birdage” does not apply to our present society. That being said, homosexuality remains a sin in almost religion in the modern world. That is just simple fact.
It is given that a governing body cannot legislate morality among the governed, although we are trying to argue just that.
All the glib of tongue and debate is not going to change the morals of our society, morals given to them by believing there is a God and his teaching are in a holy book. Therefore, this argument becomes moot. Homosexuals are as they are, and shall not change our society to fit their value system in the long term. We may have a wave of diversity today, but soon that wave will roll onto the beach and we will see it for what it is, just a small portion of a large ocean.
There will always be homosexuality. There always has been homosexuality. Why? Only God knows. However, the sanctification of homosexuality in our holy book never has nor does not exist and by extention of the Ten Commandmants of which our laws are based, will, nor should exist.
So Homosexuals being recognized as a race, sect, group, under the laws of our land may be happening today, but, just as that wave hitting the beach, that recognition will disappear in time, not my time or your time, but God’s time. For God has already explained that Homosexuality is a sin, along with killing, coveting, and having other gods before him. it is said by Commandmant to “Honor thy Father and Mother,” not father and father or mother and mother.
J
Jaroslaw
Guest
I already admitted much earlier that this discussion is way beyond me, (and thus was hardly surprised that my meager post was not responded to) but in re-reading or perhaps more honestly, should say “re-skimming” all the pages, I can say this discussion needs to be far more reigned in as it seems to be going in all directions and circles as well.
Are there concrete logical contradictions then in our current legal framework, and if so are they based on cultural, legal, or religious objections? (eg and only one example at that: whether minorities are given equal status, or simply equal voting, lovely in principle, but wouldn’t mean anything practical as they don’t have enough votes to facilitate any change.)
I’m also aware of how the moral rights differ from legal rights (I think!) but I’d like some practical, specific examples of what is acceptable and not acceptable and based on what framework.
I must apologize here, because what I’m thinking is not coming across very well in what I’m writing, and obviously my “best” isn’t very good compared to (most) of the other writers here.
- There is ample evidence from the writings of our Founding Fathers (USA) that this is not “in any sense” Christian nation, George Washington wrote a letter saying exactly that to a ‘Moslem’ nation. Also Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists support this as well.
Are there concrete logical contradictions then in our current legal framework, and if so are they based on cultural, legal, or religious objections? (eg and only one example at that: whether minorities are given equal status, or simply equal voting, lovely in principle, but wouldn’t mean anything practical as they don’t have enough votes to facilitate any change.)
I’m also aware of how the moral rights differ from legal rights (I think!) but I’d like some practical, specific examples of what is acceptable and not acceptable and based on what framework.
- Can the majority in our framework of government change it to a theocracy if desired or would that require an entirely new Constitution? What of the concept of (avoidance) tyranny of the majority which we supposedly have currently?
- What good are all these voluminous theoretical minutae if most societies if not all on earth have (a) favored the weatlhy and powerful and (b) the reigning philosophical systems almost always significantly fail to live up to their professed values?
I must apologize here, because what I’m thinking is not coming across very well in what I’m writing, and obviously my “best” isn’t very good compared to (most) of the other writers here.
S
sinnseanair
Guest
As to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both were Masons. Also having the distinct privilege of being a Mason I can assure you that both were devout in the belief of God, the Ten Commandments, and the Holy Bible.
As to the argument of Homosexuals living together having the same rights and privileges as a male and female married, it is unprovable. When you consider the thousands of men and women living together unmarried that do not have the privilege of married men and women, homosexuals fall into the same category.
According to our laws those men and women living together without benefit of marriage, have no rights to the laws governing the medical and financial benefits of married couples. Thus, it should be to all who choose to live together.
As to homosexual marriage, one only has to go to laws established by nation’s governments concerning marriage, from multiple wives to multiple husbands in certain South Pacific Islands. Today, in the name of diversity, these laws in our nation are changing. However, when the wave of diversity falls apart on the beach, and it will, those devious laws will be abolished just as Carrie Nations and her consumption of alcohol laws were when our nation had them repealed.
So, enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, homosexuals, for it will soon pass into history.
I do not understand why a man would lie down with a man or woman with a woman. Only God knows the answer. I do understand why men and women are attracted to each other, but fail to understand why, in some, that attraction lasts a lifetime, while others less than a year. Again, only God knows that answer also. I do understand that our nation’s laws were taken primarily from the Commandments given to us by God that are stated in the holy books of the world’s religions in form, that we should obey them and not change them to meet the whim of a few.
As to the argument of Homosexuals living together having the same rights and privileges as a male and female married, it is unprovable. When you consider the thousands of men and women living together unmarried that do not have the privilege of married men and women, homosexuals fall into the same category.
According to our laws those men and women living together without benefit of marriage, have no rights to the laws governing the medical and financial benefits of married couples. Thus, it should be to all who choose to live together.
As to homosexual marriage, one only has to go to laws established by nation’s governments concerning marriage, from multiple wives to multiple husbands in certain South Pacific Islands. Today, in the name of diversity, these laws in our nation are changing. However, when the wave of diversity falls apart on the beach, and it will, those devious laws will be abolished just as Carrie Nations and her consumption of alcohol laws were when our nation had them repealed.
So, enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, homosexuals, for it will soon pass into history.
I do not understand why a man would lie down with a man or woman with a woman. Only God knows the answer. I do understand why men and women are attracted to each other, but fail to understand why, in some, that attraction lasts a lifetime, while others less than a year. Again, only God knows that answer also. I do understand that our nation’s laws were taken primarily from the Commandments given to us by God that are stated in the holy books of the world’s religions in form, that we should obey them and not change them to meet the whim of a few.
M
mtbender
Guest
Sorry, seems I am a little late to this debate, but I have muddled through the pages…
A lot of this argument is based on the premise of separation of church in state – a premise which does not exist in the US Constitution. The “Establishment Clause” is very clear. Although the State cannot make a law establishing or infringing on religion; nowhere does it mention anything religion influencing the state.
Looking back on the original argument, it is true to say that states are not compelled, just as it is true to say that states are not forbidden considering divine law when making legislative decisions. The argument breaks down with the assertion that a state “can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.” - key word being “only.”
With that in mind, I would assert that the state is in no way legally obligated to forgo morality which is consistent with religion. Now if we make the leap to say the state “can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values,” than of course we are not leaving much room for debate.
With homosexual marriage in general, I think another person made a great point, what right is being denied? Even if we assume marriage is a right, the law is applied equally to all as written. One will argue that the law is discriminatory, but we can cite countless others that are as well. I think to understand it, we have to look at what the intent of secular marriage is and weather homosexual relationships meet that intent. This is a topic that has been discussed before and really doesn’t fit with this debate.
Last comment:
A lot of this argument is based on the premise of separation of church in state – a premise which does not exist in the US Constitution. The “Establishment Clause” is very clear. Although the State cannot make a law establishing or infringing on religion; nowhere does it mention anything religion influencing the state.
Looking back on the original argument, it is true to say that states are not compelled, just as it is true to say that states are not forbidden considering divine law when making legislative decisions. The argument breaks down with the assertion that a state “can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values.” - key word being “only.”
With that in mind, I would assert that the state is in no way legally obligated to forgo morality which is consistent with religion. Now if we make the leap to say the state “can only make judgments based upon pragmatic and utilitarian values,” than of course we are not leaving much room for debate.
With homosexual marriage in general, I think another person made a great point, what right is being denied? Even if we assume marriage is a right, the law is applied equally to all as written. One will argue that the law is discriminatory, but we can cite countless others that are as well. I think to understand it, we have to look at what the intent of secular marriage is and weather homosexual relationships meet that intent. This is a topic that has been discussed before and really doesn’t fit with this debate.
Last comment:
By this logic so do brother and sister, father and son, exc… Would you say they have the right to get married? If they are of age of consent they can marry.
J
Jaroslaw
Guest
MT Bender -
I assumed part of your response was to me, but perhaps it was just a general comment that happened to coincide with some of my questions. But this is to you:
I assumed part of your response was to me, but perhaps it was just a general comment that happened to coincide with some of my questions. But this is to you:
- You say “even if we assume marriage is a right…” Why do you imply it might not be?
- What right is being denied (in denying homosexuals a marriage license?) Well, I don’t want to pretend I"m a lawyer, but how about equality and due process before the law? Don’t all adults pay taxes? Then, more or less, based on having equal qualifications, (such as ability to fly a jet plane to get a pilot’s license) etc., equal treatment. We don’t say Blacks or women or Jews can’t fly planes, do we? (just for one example)
- No brothers & sisters cannot get married, incest and genetic laws apply to everyone. I don’t know much about formal logic, but I can tell you this: (comparing Sacred Heart’s quote in your post) - - - - If an apple and cherry are red, and both are fruits, then an apple and cherry are the same thing. Not!
S
sinnseanair
Guest
In finality of this fruitless argument, I would only say this. To all homosexuals, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”. The priest that married my beautiful wife and I, a little over 50 years ago, said that at the ending of our marriage ceremony. In my lifetime, I have found only two truths, There is a God, and I am not him, a simple truth taught to me at Notre Dame Universitity and alluded to again in the movie “Rudy”. Therefore, I cannot judge what you are doing, or dictate what our state and nation’s laws shall be, or singlehandedly overturn what has been enacted by humans made in God’s image. God gave us free will. However, when that free will takes us against God’s laws, there are consequences, just ask Adam and Eve.
Personally, I have a nephew that is homosexual. He contributes greatly to the good of all as a doctor researching the causes of, and possible cures for, cancer. So, I say, without judgement, that homosexuals can and do add to our society. It is only for God to judge. It is the “in your face” forcing of secular changes of laws based on the Ten Commandments to which I strongly object and will continue until my Father tells me otherwise.
To MTBender the word is whether, not weather.
Personally, I have a nephew that is homosexual. He contributes greatly to the good of all as a doctor researching the causes of, and possible cures for, cancer. So, I say, without judgement, that homosexuals can and do add to our society. It is only for God to judge. It is the “in your face” forcing of secular changes of laws based on the Ten Commandments to which I strongly object and will continue until my Father tells me otherwise.
To MTBender the word is whether, not weather.
M
mtbender
Guest
I am glad I can always count on someone here to spell check for me…
M
mtbender
Guest
Jaroslaw,
Thanks for the reply…
ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/laws_that_discriminate_against_women.pdf
usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html
sinnseanair,
Standing by for spell check…
Thanks for the reply…
This is a tricky one, and I know that there are several mixed schools of thought on what makes something a legal right and what makes something a legal privilege. The definition being “A particular benefit, advantage, or Immunity enjoyed by a person or class of people that is not shared with others. A power of exemption against or beyond the law. It is not a right but, rather, exempts one from the performance of a duty, obligation, or liability.” Marriage was created in society to grant exemptions to married couples to promote childbearing and childrearing in society in order to strengthen family and look after the well being of the children and society as a whole.
The point I was making here is that the law does not say homosexuals cannot marry, as long as they follow the formula of the law which is marrying someone of the opposite sex. The key to this is looking again at the original secular intent of marriage. It was not just an outwardly sign of love, there is more to it than that. What social function was marriage law intended to serve and does a same sex marriage fall under that?
Age discrimination is rampant in today’s laws – at the age 17 a solder can go to war, but can’t vote, legally carry a hand gun, exc. Affirmative action laws (standing by for the arguments to this one), Immigration Laws (I provided a link rather than going into detail – Pg 74). I think that should enough to make the point…
The intent was just to show the issue with the logic that Sacred Heart used, but I will add that having a healthy child is not a condition for homosexual marriage, so arguing that point for any other form of marriage is creating a double standard. A topic for another discussion…
ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/laws_that_discriminate_against_women.pdf
usconstitution.net/consttop_marr.html
sinnseanair,
Standing by for spell check…
- Status