Political Philosophy: An arguement in support of Gay rights

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter
**
The question is, why should a secular state recognise it as “evil”.**

A secular state doesn’t have to recognize it at all. That’s the point. Nonsense doesn’t have to be recognized.

 

[Jaroslaw]

There is something that doesn’t seem to have been considered here. I keep reading that homosexual marriage goes against common sense, it is a detriment to human society etc.

Do you really think by banning it, you are preventing (homosexual) people from living their lives (ie do you think you are preventing people from being homoesexual) or are you only being “mean” by denying homosexuals benefits? I suggest that history shows repression and punishment only drives any phenomenon underground, legal sanctions don’t eradicate it.

If it is so unnatural and abnormal, I wouldn’t think that anyone would be “tempted” to become homosexual just because homosexual marriage is legal, say in Massachussetts? The sky has not fallen there, I haven’t heard about a great increase in general wickedness. Please don’t say the media has covered it up. Yes, the media is hardly unbiased, but after 5 or 6 years of legal same sex marriage surely SOMETHING would have leaked out by now. I’ve heard nothing.

And Charlemagne, (and others) when you say “never has there been a time in history that there has been so little common sense,” (a rough paraphrase) do I take it you are an authority on world history from the beginning to the present? That is an awful lot of material to be commenting on…

****for a different perspective, watch “A very British Sex Scandal” about Peter Wildeblood and Lord Montague - in 1952 a homosexual convicted of “the worst offense” could be imprisoned for LIFE. The minimum was 7 years. One of the main criticisms of the homosexual is they were emotionally stunted and incapable of commitment. Well DUH, if caught you could lose everything and go to prison for life , does that encourage stability? The prevailing attitude then was that society was about to crumble because of homosexuality. But recall, society was going to crumble if women got the right to vote. Or if interracial marriage was allowed etc. And I think a sentence of life in prison is obscenely harsh, if I could use a pun for something so serious. Worse than murder?

 

[mo3]

Do you really think by banning it, you are preventing (homosexual) people from living their lives (ie do you think you are preventing people from being homoesexual) or are you only being “mean” by denying homosexuals benefits?

Are you being mean by forcing homosexual lifestyle upon the majority of Christian Americans? Are you supporting the anti-religious bigot ideology?

Christians have rights too and we can vote our conscience regardless of the name calling from the “secular religious” people.

God bless.

 

[mo3]

Its not a matter of voting; but rather its a matter of proving your case to the legal system in front of a court. This is a human rights battle not a voting rights battle.

Ultimately this will be settled with votes. If some crazy court legislates from the bench and rules gay marriages are legal, a constitutional amendment will be passed eventually. The constitution is the law and courts must uphold it.

Since you are Catholic, I implore and expect you to vote in favor of Christian values. You have the constitutional right to do so.

God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Ultimately this will be settled with votes. If some crazy court legislates from the bench and rules gay marriages are legal, a constitutional amendment will be passed eventually. The constitution is the law and courts must uphold it.

Will the right to own black slaves be amended to? How about mixed marriages? Or any other human rights violation that was once thought to be okay according to law. I don’t think you really understand the situation. If gay rights activist can convince the court that they are an oppressed minority and should be given the equal rights of all citizens including “marriage” according to their sexual orientation, there will be no “amendments”.

Since you are Catholic, I implore and expect you to vote in favor of Christian values. You have the constitutional right to do so.

God bless.

I will vote for the least of two evils, since I cannot vote for a theocracy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jaroslaw

And Charlemagne, (and others) when you say “never has there been a time in history that there has been so little common sense,” (a rough paraphrase) do I take it you are an authority on world history from the beginning to the present? That is an awful lot of material to be commenting on…

If you can cite any previous civilization that has been so fool-headed as to demand the right of sodomites to marry, you are welcome to cite that civilization here and now. Otherwise, in the absence of such a citation, it is legitimate to point to our culture as bereft of common sense.

These things happen at various points in history … whole cultures go off their rocker. It happened in France and Russia and Germany over the past three centuries. It is happening to us now.

Get you brain in gear and think like the Catholic you are supposed to be instead of a stooge for the radical left.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Are you being mean by forcing homosexual lifestyle upon the majority of Christian Americans?

What does that mean? Is that to say there is some effort being consumed on converting heterosexuals to homosexuals and getting them to change aspects of their lifestyle?

 

[mo3]

I don’t think you really understand the situation. If gay rights activist can convince the court that they are an oppressed minority and should be given the equal rights of all citizens including “marriage” according to their sexual orientation, there will be no “amendments”.

I don’t think you really understand the US Constitution and that it defines rights. When an amendment is passed, it becomes law and it defines rights. Please see the Bill of Rights which are “amendments!”

There will be an amendment if the crazy courts legislate from the bench and rules gay marriages are legal.

I will vote for the least of two evils, since I cannot vote for a theocracy.

This is your “secular religious” excuse to vote against Christian values.

You keep bring up theocracy as if someone here is promoting it which is false. This is a red herring because your arguments are weak.

The United States of America is not and will not be a theocracy if it passes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman.

God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t think you really understand the US Constitution and that it defines rights. When an amendment is passed, it becomes law and it defines rights. Please see the Bill of Rights which are “amendments!”

There will be an amendment if the crazy courts legislate from the bench and rules gay marriages are legal.

God bless.

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?

 

[mtbender]

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?

Mixed marriages and same-sex marriage are completely different, but again, that would require people to look at what the INTENT of secular marriage is. Mixed marriage can still meet the original intent – I am not sold that same-sex marriage can do the same.

But as I asked before, what would be your definition of the intent of secular marriage law?

 

[mo3]

What does that mean? Is that to say there is some effort being consumed on converting heterosexuals to homosexuals and getting them to change aspects of their lifestyle?

As I have pointed out before, legalizing gay marriages will “force” the majority of Americans to accept many things against our will. We will be forced to participate in many ways. Our public schools will be forced to teach that it is a morally acceptable life style. Catholic adoption agencies will be forced to place adoptions with gay couples or close their doors. People who speak publically against the gay marriage will be forcibly taken to jail. Preachers will be charged with hate speech if they preach against the gay marriage and some kook who heard the sermon went out and killed a gay person. Employers will be forced to pay benefits to gay couples. I could go on and on and on and on and on………………………

We must look beyond a simple law legalizing gay marriage. We must consider the ramifications.

God bless.

 

[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?

No. So what. It is a non sequitur.

God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is your “secular religious” excuse to vote against Christian values.

I never said that I would vote against Christian values. I said I would vote for the lesser of two evils.

You keep bring up theocracy as if someone here is promoting it which is false. This is a red herring because your arguments are weak.

The United States of America is not and will not be a theocracy if it passes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman.

You are taking my argument out of context.

If the government passes that amendment purely because of cultural or religious dogma, such would be inconsistent with the idea that the government does not a-prior place Christian religious principles, and thus also religious definitions of human sexuality in particular, over other religions and cultural definitions. A system that does not a-prior define the legal process according to Christian law, cannot assume a-prior that the Christian religion is true or correct in regards to its moral and religious principles, especially those concerning the definition of marriage. Unless religious or moral principles can be proven without error (and thus without victimizing the public) as being rationally true and relevant to the legal process (and not just prejudice disguised in religious beliefs), you voice will fall on deaf ears precisely because you are not a theocracy and thus do not have the legal authority to dictate that Catholic principles and definitions of morality and sexuality apply necessarily in a secular system or pluralistic society.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No. So what. It is a non sequitur.

God bless.

Its not a non-sequitur. If the legal authorities decide that there is no evident rational grounds to reject somebodies protest for an equal right regarding some privilege normally enjoyed by the rest of society, it follows that if those rights are given they will generally enjoy immunity from the voting process. And you have agreed to that fact by saying no.
Its thus a matter of the courts rational discretion, and unless you can prove to the government that your religious/moral principles and sexual-theology objectively and evidently invalidates same sex state marriage, there will be no “amendment”.

In the future, if you are going to accuse me of something, please demonstrate the fact that you are accusing me of. Otherwise i will dismiss your assertions as just blind denial.

 

[mo3]

If the government passes that amendment purely because of cultural or religious dogma, such would be inconsistent with the idea that the government does not a-prior place Christian religious principles, and thus also religious definitions of human sexuality in particular, over other religions and cultural definitions. A system that does not a-prior define the legal process according to Christian law, cannot assume a-prior that the Christian religion is true or correct in regards to its moral and religious principles, especially those concerning the definition of marriage. Unless religious or moral principles can be proven without error (and thus without victimizing the public) as being rationally true and relevant to the legal process (and not just prejudice disguised in religious beliefs), you voice will fall on deaf ears precisely because you are not a theocracy and thus do not have the legal authority to dictate that Catholic principles and definitions of morality and sexuality apply necessarily in a secular system or pluralistic society.

This is your consistent response. I just disagree with your logic, assumptions and so called facts.

You support a “secular government” base upon a “secular religion” over individuals voting their conscience.

God bless.

 

[Mudgely]

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.
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.
3. Given premise 1 and 2, Moral rights is not the same thing as Legal rights
4. Therefore the state is legally justified in supporting gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples because…
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.
6. Thus a state is necessarily pluralistic since it cannot oppose anything on the basis of religion or belief.

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 would say that postulate (1) is incomplete. My view of the State is that it should form its decisions based on pragmatic and utilitarian principles, but that those principles are also balanced against teleological and libertarian ideals. This is precisely where the conflict between opposing points of view arise. The religious arguments for or against gay marriage are primarily teleological. They pose the question: “what is the nature of marriage.” The teleological questions are important to the State. For example, one of the common arguments against utilitarianism is that it would indeed justify slavery, and the discrimination against minorities. The libertarian counter principle would say that there is a unique human right to freedom, which can also be taken as part of the nature of man, making it teleological as well.

This has been the change in the law lately. There is a changing legal view on the purpose or nature of marriage. Further, you get into the libertarian aspects of equal protection, once gay marriage is enacted in a State, and then those legally married people are discriminated against by other states, or by federal law. This is why DADT was found to be illegal, and also why DOMA is illegal.

 

[mo3]

Its thus a matter of the courts rational discretion, and unless you can prove to the government that your religious/moral principles and sexual-theology objectively and evidently invalidates same sex state marriage, there will be no “amendment”.

I will try this one more time. The US Constitution mandates the laws and rights to be enforced by the courts. The courts do not mandate what the constitution says.

In voting for an amendment to the US constitution, nobody has to “prove” anything to a court or government.

God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I will try this one more time. The US Constitution mandates the laws and rights to be enforced by the courts. The courts do not mandate what the constitution says.

In voting for an amendment to the US constitution, nobody has to “prove” anything to a court or government.

God bless.

Your back to the contextual fallacy of voting again as being the determinant grounds upon which the legal system defines and enforces human-rights.

Thanks for the discussion; Goodbye.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mo3

In voting for an amendment to the US constitution, nobody has to “prove” anything to a court or government.

True. The only thing that has to be shown is that it is the will of the people. That is what decides a constitutional provision. If the Constitution were to include an amendment to define marriage as the joining of two people of the opposite sex, lunatic left wing jurists would have to prove why that amendment is unconstitutional … which they** couldn’t** do!

The sooner this country returns to its senses, the better. Let’s have a national debate, and let’s hear who wants to defend the marriage of sodomites as anything but a gross violation of common sense.

I think we might even find a few atheists who think so.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

**Your back to the contextual fallacy of voting again as being the determinant grounds upon which the legal system defines and enforces human-rights. **

This is a laughable notion. Do you think when the Supreme Court rules they do not vote first?