Gay Thread:6-3-05 Republicans succeed at keeping California discriminatory against Gays

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Another big liberal circle-jerk. Maybe, some day, one of you will realize that there is another side to the coin and that not everyone who sees it is some stupid, uneducated, redneck/hick. Doubt you ever will, but here's hoping. :beer:

What's the other side exactly? One that involves the fact the people are indifferent to another person way of life? Or should I say... Bigotry?

No - that there is a difference between the sexes.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Tabb
What's the other side exactly? One that involves the fact the people are indifferent to another person way of life? Or should I say... Bigotry?
As usual, your childish attempt at a retort does not compensate for your complete lack of anything cogent to add to this discussion. Please try again.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Another big liberal circle-jerk. Maybe, some day, one of you will realize that there is another side to the coin and that not everyone who sees it is some stupid, uneducated, redneck/hick. Doubt you ever will, but here's hoping. :beer:

What's the other side exactly? One that involves the fact the people are indifferent to another person way of life? Or should I say... Bigotry?

No - that there is a difference between the sexes.

So that makes it OK to discriminate??? :confused:

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Just hoticed there was no response to this 3 months ago.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Fair enough. I guess those weren't the points that I was making, though others may have been. I'm more of the position that the government needs to draw the line regarding marriage somewhere and that the current place is logically appropriate. If benefits are awarded (via marriage) to those who cannot procreate, then what motive is there for bestowing these benefits? It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's the angle I view it from.
So why are the 'benefits' of marriage (benefits like being able to inherit your partner's property, protection against having to testify against your spouse in criminal court, being able to make medical treatment decisions for your partner if the partner is medically incapacitated) - most of which have no real bearing on whether or not the couple has children - dependent on the couple having children? How does that make sense?
Pretty sure that if you will your estate to a non-family member, they will get it regardless of whether or not they're in a homosexual relationship with you at the time.

Rubbish. You are speaking out of your ass. There are countless examples within the gay community of homophobic relatives contesting such wills, and winning. It is easier to successfully contest a will in such a situation than if the couple was actually married. There are over 1400 legal protections - at the federal and state levels - associated with marriage. It is simply not possible to replicate these protections with a few legal contracts. (And why should same-sex couples be made to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees just to achieve a minute fraction of the basic protections offered to heterosexual couples?)

At any rate, all of the above is irrelevant to my question. You suggest that the logically appropriate place to draw the line re: marriage is with heterosexual couples, because the purpose of awarding the benefits associated with marriage is the support of procreation. (That is what I infer from your comment above).

I asked you to explain just how drawing the line at heterosexual couples is logically appropriate.

It does not seem logically appropriate to me, particularly when I see that:
-infertile heterosexuals are able to marry
-married heterosexuals who choose not to have children do not have their marriage licenses revoked
-heterosexual couples who don't procreate, but instead choose to adopt children, are entitled to marry.
-gay couples who are raising their own biological children (from prior heterosexual relationships) are not entitled to marry.

Instead of answering my question, you prattle on about the practicalities of same-sex couples replicating the legal protections associated with marriage. Answer the question.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not terribly familiar with the testimony part and can't really see why a spouse shouldn't have to testify against his/her spouse in the first place.

The notion that a person is legally exempt from testifying against their spouse is a time-honoured legal principle, and is justfiable for many reasons. But more to the point, heterosexaual married couples DON'T have to testify against their spouse. Long term gay couples ARE legally obliged to testify against their partner. A recent, high profile, example: Rosie O'Donnell's partner was obliged to offer testimony in the legal case between O'Donnell and the publisher of her magazine. The court ruled that because they were not legally married she would have to testify. It's a glaring discrepancy between the way married heterosexual and homosexual couples are treated by the legal system.

But this is all irrelevant to my question. Here is your comment (the comment I responded to):

"I'm more of the position that the government needs to draw the line regarding marriage somewhere and that the current place is logically appropriate. If benefits are awarded (via marriage) to those who cannot procreate, then what motive is there for bestowing these benefits?" - PsychoWizard

You appear to believe that the so-called benefits (actually, legal protections) of marriage are awarded on the basis that heterosexual couples are able to procreate. At least, that is what I infer from your comment above.

So what then is the logical basis for allowing infertile heterosexual couples to marry?

With respect to the possibility of bearing children within the union, how is a same-sex couple any different than a sterile heterosexual couple?

And what of the many, many heterosexual married couples who choose not to procreate? Why should they have access to marriage -- if procreation is the rationale marriage benefits and protections?

You also need to explain why incestuous couples and polygamous groups should be excluded from marriage, if the sine qua non of civil marriage (or the legal protections associated with it) is the support of procreation. These arrangements are perfectly likely to result in offspring, afterall.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As for medical decisions - power of attorney for healthcare may be bestowed on anyone you see fit, regardless of their relationship with you. The legal avenues for these things already exists and is the same for any couple, whether married or otherwise, as long as they do the paperwork.

Do you think all gay couples have sufficient money, knowledge, or legal sophistication to arrange medical power of attourney? And do you think such power of attourney is always respected by the courts? A married person automatically has the right to make medical decisions for their incapacitated spouse. There is no requirement for a formal transfer of medical power of attourney to the spouse. That right to make medical decisions for the spouse takes precedence over any claims made by the ill person's family. This has been tested in courts all over the US (and the civilized world). The value of this automatic granting of power of attourney to one's spouse re: medical decisions stems from the fact that that most people don't anticipate being medically incapacitated. Most people who end up in the emergency ward of the hospital are not legally prepared. People don't typically carry with them legal documents proving power of attourney for their partner. However thanks to legal precedent, a married person can be confident of being able to see their spouse in hospital, and make medical decisions for that spouse (if the spouse is incapacitated). That is not the case for same sex couples. Frequently gay people will be denied access to their partners in hospital. On occasion the ill gay person will die in hospital, without their parter ever having been able to see them in their dying moments. This typically happens when the biological relatives of the ill person are like you, i.e., extremely homophobic, and refuse access to the ill person. The biological relatives have the right to make medical decisions in such cases, not the long term partner. If the ill person dies, their partner will not be legally entitled to make burial arrangements, that right is also awarded to the biological family. Gay family ties are treated as if they are non-existent, whereas numerous legal precedents act to support and protect the family ties of married heterosexual couples. Gay couples do not have access to the same legal protections as heterosexual couples, and suffer as a result. Your blithe dismissal of that suffering, without having even bothered to apprise yourself of the facts, leaves me sickened.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why are the benefits of marriage awarded at the point of marriage if the rational behind those benefits is supporting procreation? Why are they not awared at the point when the couple has their first child?
They are, at least as far as taxation goes - you get child credits after you have kids. I'm not sure if this credit applies outside of marriage or not, but it's my understanding that filing jointly doesn't give you much of anything in and of itself. I'm not aware of many other benefits that you get from being married.

Your ignorance makes me think it is a waste of time interacting with you.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why do infertile heterosexual married couples have access to the benefits of marriage?
Are you suggesting fertility tests prior to marriage?

No, but then I'm not the moron who believes the sine qua non of civil marriage (or the legal protections associated with it) is procreation. Actually, I am asking you to explain why marriage is awarded to inferttile heterosexuals, if the purpose of civil marriage (or the legal protections associated with it) is procreation. You wonder why I didn't respond to this post. It is because of your deep dishonesty. I asked you a very simple question. Answer it.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
A significant percentage of gay couples are raising children, why are they not entitled to marry?
Raising children is not the same as having children.

And the significance of that is precisely what, you dumb fvck?

If you think a distinction between having and raising children is so terribly important, then why are heterosexual couples who adopt children entitled to marry? What is the logic behind that?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why are the children of these gay couples made to suffer or have access to less state and federal protections or support because their parents happen to be gay?
What state and federal protections are granted to children based on marriage? If anything, I would think that more protections would be granted based on single parenthood.

Protections such as access to social security benefits if one of the parents dies. If the non-biological parent in a same-sex family dies, the child will not be eligible for any government assistance (that would normally be given to a child as a result of the death of a parent). If the couple had been married, the child would be eligible for a parental death allowance. This is particularly disadvantageous for the children of gay couples when the main income earner of the family dies suddenly, and the deceased person is not the biological parent of the children. Another issue is custody of the child after a parent dies. Even if the child has been raised within the same-sex family since infancy, if the biological parent dies there is a high chance the child will be removed from the remaining parent. And so you have kids losing one parent, then being ripped away from the remaining parent and being dragged off to stay with (often homophobic) relatives who are determined to 'protect' the child from his/ her remaining parent's homosexuality. Step parents within married heterosexual couples, on the other hand, are free to adopt their step-child. Gay couples are specifically legally barred from doing that in most jurisdictions. There are many other types of legal protections for the children of married couples, pertaining to medical treatment in case of the death of a parent, child custody and child allowance payments in event of a breakdown of the parental relationship, access to government assistance in cases of parental death, and so on.



 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
And the significance of that is precisely what, you dumb fvck?
Aw, I thought they finally banned you for trolling. Sorry to see you slipped through the cracks yet again. I guess banning you for bigotry would be gay bashing, right? :cookie:
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: aidanjm
And the significance of that is precisely what, you dumb fvck?
Aw, I thought they finally banned you for trolling. Sorry to see you slipped through the cracks yet again. I guess banning you for bigotry would be gay bashing, right? :cookie:

What was that you said?

"If benefits are awarded (via marriage) to those who cannot procreate, then what motive is there for bestowing these benefits" - PsychoWizard

You suggest that the logically appropriate place to draw the line re: marriage is with heterosexual couples, because the purpose of awarding the benefits associated with marriage is the support of procreation. (That is what I infer from your comment above).

I asked you to explain just how drawing the line at heterosexual couples is logically appropriate. It does not seem logically appropriate to me, particularly when I see that:

-infertile heterosexuals are able to marry

-married heterosexuals who choose not to have children do not have their marriage licenses revoked

-heterosexual couples who don't procreate, but instead choose to adopt children, are entitled to marry.

-gay couples who are raising their own biological children (from prior heterosexual relationships) are not entitled to marry.


You can't answer the question without acknowledging the logical incoherency of your position. :)

As for my "bigotry", you'll need to explain how my criticism and ridicule of the CEO of the Vatican, and the Vatican itself, equates to bigotry.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
As for my "bigotry", you'll need to explain how my criticism and ridicule of the CEO of the Vatican, and the Vatican itself, equates to bigotry.
Bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Bigotry: 1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

Your ignorance of the Catholic Church's position regarding homosexuality, combined with your rampant jackassery regarding both the pope and Mother Theresa, are astounding. You assume that you're right simply because you are homosexual, then try to force acceptance of homosexuality on a religion because you don't want anyone to frown on your own behavior. I already told you why you have absolutely no room to argue with the ethics of the situation, since you don't even know what the Church's position IS with respect to homosexuality, and you're certainly not qualified to put yourself above the pope in any ethical debate, particularly when you don't even know what his stance is.

In short, you're being a bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. You refuse to even learn what the position you oppose is before actually calling the man who put it forth EVIL. I can't think of a more obvious display of bigotry due to gross ignorance.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: aidanjm
As for my "bigotry", you'll need to explain how my criticism and ridicule of the CEO of the Vatican, and the Vatican itself, equates to bigotry.
Bigot: : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Bigotry: 1 : the state of mind of a bigot
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

What was that you said?

"If benefits are awarded (via marriage) to those who cannot procreate, then what motive is there for bestowing these benefits" - PsychoWizard

You suggest that the logically appropriate place to draw the line re: marriage is with heterosexual couples, because the purpose of awarding the benefits associated with marriage is the support of procreation. (That is what I infer from your comment above).

I asked you to explain just how drawing the line at heterosexual couples is logically appropriate. It does not seem logically appropriate to me, particularly when I see that:

-infertile heterosexuals are able to marry

-married heterosexuals who choose not to have children do not have their marriage licenses revoked

-heterosexual couples who don't procreate, but instead choose to adopt children, are entitled to marry.

-gay couples who are raising their own biological children (from prior heterosexual relationships) are not entitled to marry.

You can't answer the question without acknowledging the logical incoherency of your position. :)


Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Your ignorance of the Catholic Church's position regarding homosexuality, combined with your rampant jackassery regarding both the pope and Mother Theresa, are astounding. You assume that you're right simply because you are homosexual, then try to force acceptance of homosexuality on a religion because you don't want anyone to frown on your own behavior. I already told you why you have absolutely no room to argue with the ethics of the situation, since you don't even know what the Church's position IS with respect to homosexuality, and you're certainly not qualified to put yourself above the pope in any ethical debate, particularly when you don't even know what his stance is.

There is nothing particularly complex about catholic dogma on homosexuality. It stems from natural law arguments (as opposed to Biblical scriptures) that are simply not logically coherent. The church "philosophy" on homosexuality is merely ancient prejudice dressed up as philosophy. It doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny, imo. The central logical error at the heart of natural law is the assumption that the way something is = the way something should (from a moral persepctive) be.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
In short, you're being a bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. You refuse to even learn what the position you oppose is before actually calling the man who put it forth EVIL. I can't think of a more obvious display of bigotry due to gross ignorance.

Lol. There are SO many reasons why I considered the Poop to be a depraved, demented, evil individual. His position on homosexuality = just one reason among many. :)
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
There is nothing particularly complex about catholic dogma on homosexuality. It stems from natural law arguments (as opposed to Biblical scriptures) that are simply not logically coherent. The church "philosophy" on homosexuality is merely ancient prejudice dressed up as philosophy. It doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny, imo. The central logical error at the heart of natural law is the assumption that the way something is = the way something should (from a moral persepctive) be.
That's funny... Do you have a PhD in philosophy? No? Well, the pope did, and he didn't have any problems drawing logical conclusions on the basis of natural law. Further, this particular pope's reasons for declaring homosexual acts illicit are based on other principles rather than just simply natural law - he clearly laid out the purposes of human sexuality, then judged every sex act by these criteria. Consider, just this once, that the shortfalling here could be on your part rather than his. If you won't even consider options that don't agree with your choice of lifestyle, then bollocks to you.
Lol. There are SO many reasons why I considered the Poop to be a depraved, demented, evil individual. His position on homosexuality = just one reason among many. :)
Thereby demonstrating your ignorance yet again. This pope did more to promote acceptance of homosexuality than any pope EVER, far and away. You'd rather demonize the man for simply disagreeing with you, even stooping to the level of calling him an evil person, simply because he refused to bow to your whims? Something tells me he's not the depraved one here.
 

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Lol. There are SO many reasons why I considered the Poop to be a depraved, demented, evil individual. His position on homosexuality = just one reason among many. :)

I may not have agreed with the guy on a few things, but that doesn't give me the right to demonize him.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: aidanjm
There is nothing particularly complex about catholic dogma on homosexuality. It stems from natural law arguments (as opposed to Biblical scriptures) that are simply not logically coherent. The church "philosophy" on homosexuality is merely ancient prejudice dressed up as philosophy. It doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny, imo. The central logical error at the heart of natural law is the assumption that the way something is = the way something should (from a moral persepctive) be.

I don't think you understand what the Catholic view on homosexuality is.

Being gay in and of itself is not a sin. Having sex without the intent to procreate however, is viewed as a sin in the Catholic Church. Thus the reason the Church is also against birth control.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: aidanjm
There is nothing particularly complex about catholic dogma on homosexuality. It stems from natural law arguments (as opposed to Biblical scriptures) that are simply not logically coherent. The church "philosophy" on homosexuality is merely ancient prejudice dressed up as philosophy. It doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny, imo. The central logical error at the heart of natural law is the assumption that the way something is = the way something should (from a moral persepctive) be.

I don't think you understand what the Catholic view on homosexuality is.

Being gay in and of itself is not a sin. Having sex without the intent to procreate however, is viewed as a sin in the Catholic Church. Thus the reason the Church is also against birth control.

Yeah, I know. And masturbation is a "grave sin" (in their words). :disgust:

And yet the Poop did not speak out against:
-infertile, married heterosexual couples having sex
-masturbation
-sex between married couples after the female partner has reached menopause and is no longer capable of bearing children

These sins are considered to be no less grave than homosexual sex within Catholic dogma (there is no possibility for procreation with each of these circumstances).

The catholic church won't attack masturbation, or sex between married infertile heterosexuals, because such a move is not politically tenable. They CAN get away with attacking homosexuals, because most people on the planet hate f@gs.

The idea that the sex act must only occur when there is a possibility for procreation is a natural law argument (this idea does NOT come from Biblical scriptures). Simplified, it goes like this:

1. sex CAN lead to procreation

therefore

2. sex SHOULD lead to procreation, at all times. Furthermore, any sex that occurs without the possibility of procreation is morally inappropriate.

The above argument is not logically valid. You cannot legitimately derive a moral prescription (a "should") from a simple statement of fact.

The notion that sex should only take place when there is a possibility of procreation is entirely arbitrary dogma, not supported by scripture.

What is most offensive is the selective application of this dogma to homosexuals - while conveniently ignoring sexually active married, infertile heterosexuals and post-menopausal heterosexuals, people who masturbate, and so on. Asking individuals to remain celibate their entire life - never to experience romantic love or marital relationships - is cruelty. And the fact that this cruel advice comes from a bunch of elderly virgins and pedophiles makes the advice all the more obscene.


 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
oh no.. not the pope. he considered contraception even between man and wife a sin. no point bringing up the pope, except as example of irrational beliefs that are fine to apply to yourself, and unjustifiable if you try to apply to anyone else.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Yeah, I know. And masturbation is a "grave sin" (in their words). :disgust:

And yet the Poop did not speak out against:
-infertile, married heterosexual couples having sex
-masturbation
-sex between married couples after the female partner has reached menopause and is no longer capable of bearing children

These sins are considered to be no less grave than homosexual sex within Catholic dogma (there is no possibility for procreation with each of these circumstances).

The catholic church won't attack masturbation, or sex between married infertile heterosexuals, because such a move is not politically tenable. They CAN get away with attacking homosexuals, because most people on the planet hate f@gs.
First, what Loki presented is correct to an extent, but it's an oversimplification. Second, I'd like to see where the pope spoke out against homosexuals - just one example.

Your 'natural law' argument is fabricated by you, for you, in an effort to justify your own position by attempting to make those who oppose you look like idiots. In other words, it's a straw man.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Yeah, I know. And masturbation is a "grave sin" (in their words). :disgust:

And yet the Poop did not speak out against:
-infertile, married heterosexual couples having sex
-masturbation
-sex between married couples after the female partner has reached menopause and is no longer capable of bearing children

These sins are considered to be no less grave than homosexual sex within Catholic dogma (there is no possibility for procreation with each of these circumstances).

The catholic church won't attack masturbation, or sex between married infertile heterosexuals, because such a move is not politically tenable. They CAN get away with attacking homosexuals, because most people on the planet hate f@gs.

The idea that the sex act must only occur when there is a possibility for procreation is a natural law argument (this idea does NOT come from Biblical scriptures). Simplified, it goes like this:

1. sex CAN lead to procreation

therefore

2. sex SHOULD lead to procreation, at all times. Furthermore, any sex that occurs without the possibility of procreation is morally inappropriate.

The above argument is not logically valid. You cannot legitimately derive a moral prescription (a "should") from a simple statement of fact.

The notion that sex should only take place when there is a possibility of procreation is entirely arbitrary dogma, not supported by scripture.

What is most offensive is the selective application of this dogma to homosexuals - while conveniently ignoring sexually active married, infertile heterosexuals and post-menopausal heterosexuals, people who masturbate, and so on. Asking individuals to remain celibate their entire life - never to experience romantic love or marital relationships - is cruelty. And the fact that this cruel advice comes from a bunch of elderly virgins and pedophiles makes the advice all the more obscene.

I love this. Honest, I do. My family is largely Catholic (15 aunts and uncles, 6 great-aunts and uncles with similarly large families), half of them would hate you and half of them would laugh heartily and buy you a beer.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Your 'natural law' argument is fabricated by you, for you, in an effort to justify your own position by attempting to make those who oppose you look like idiots. In other words, it's a straw man.

In a nut-shell, natural law involves looking at what IS, to determine what SHOULD BE.

i.e., there are no homosexual animals - therefore humans shouldn't practice homosexuality
or, sex can lead to procreation - therefore sex should always lead to (or allow for) procreation.

Catholic dogma on homosexuality or non-procreative sex are merely wankified variations on the above, logically incoherent 'argument'.

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
First, what Loki presented is correct to an extent, but it's an oversimplification. Second, I'd like to see where the pope spoke out against homosexuals - just one example.

Yes, I might consider addressing your questions, when you respond to mine. For example, did you not say the following:

"If benefits are awarded (via marriage) to those who cannot procreate, then what motive is there for bestowing these benefits" - PsychoWizard

You suggest that the logically appropriate place to draw the line re: marriage is with heterosexual couples, because the purpose of awarding the benefits associated with marriage is the support of procreation. (That is what I infer from your comment above).

I asked you to explain just how drawing the line at heterosexual couples is logically appropriate. It does not seem logically appropriate to me, particularly when I see that:

-infertile heterosexuals are able to marry

-married heterosexuals who choose not to have children do not have their marriage licenses revoked

-heterosexual couples who don't procreate, but instead choose to adopt children, are entitled to marry.

-gay couples who are raising their own biological children (from prior heterosexual relationships) are not entitled to marry.


You can't answer the question without acknowledging the logical incoherency of your position. :)


 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
I love this. Honest, I do. My family is largely Catholic (15 aunts and uncles, 6 great-aunts and uncles with similarly large families), half of them would hate you and half of them would laugh heartily and buy you a beer.

I'm not hostile towards the laity, you know.

I can be especially friendly towards studly and buff catholic dudes. :p

 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm


In a nut-shell, natural law involves looking at what IS, to determine what SHOULD BE.

i.e., there are no homosexual animals - therefore humans shouldn't practice homosexuality
or, sex can lead to procreation - therefore sex should always lead to (or allow for) procreation.

Umm. . . you are wrong about natural law. Natural law can be either a legal or a moral theory, but what defines both is that their tenents are derived from some objective and universal aspect of human nature, or the nature of the universe itself.

So, the church holds it's postition because God (ie a fundamental part of the natural universe) has revealed to his prophets that sex for purposes other than procreation is wrong. That's natural law, because it trancends culture, time, and any other "relevatist" arugments. God's word is right to all, forever, because he is God.

Or,

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because indivuduals should not be descriminated against for irrlevant reasons. All men are created equal, it is a part of human nature. All humans, universally, regardless of culture or time, have the right to equal treatment. This right is an inalienable aspect of human nature.

These are examples of a natural law moral theory. The natural law legal theory states that there is an overlap between what is "right" morally and what should be the law. I.e., it is wrong to kill, and that is why it is illegal to kill. This is in opposition to the positivists who would say that it is illegal to kill because the goverment says so, and they have the power to enforce their wishes. The two theories are often have the same proponants, but are not dependent on each other.

To learn more, check out the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a fun site to browse.

Both are natural law arguments, though they are in direct opposition. Who taught you your definition, aidanjim, a grade 8 teacher? Or a poorly written anti-clerical pamphlet from the 18th century?

This being said, you have pointed out several inconsistencies in CycloWizard's argument, and I would like to hear how he responds.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: aidanjm


In a nut-shell, natural law involves looking at what IS, to determine what SHOULD BE.

i.e., there are no homosexual animals - therefore humans shouldn't practice homosexuality
or, sex can lead to procreation - therefore sex should always lead to (or allow for) procreation.

Umm. . . you are wrong about natural law. Natural law can be either a legal or a moral theory, but what defines both is that their tenents are derived from some objective and universal aspect of human nature, or the nature of the universe itself.

You're just re-stating my formulation of natural moral law in somewhat more sophisticated language. At core, it involves looking to nature (or 'god' or 'human nature') for norms of behavior or normal attributes, and then saying those norms of behavior are morally desirable. The people on this forum who say there are no homosexual animals (as an argument against human homosexuality) are mounting their own crude natural law arguments.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
So, the church holds it's postition because God (ie a fundamental part of the natural universe) has revealed to his prophets that sex for purposes other than procreation is wrong. That's natural law, because it trancends culture, time, and any other "relevatist" arugments. God's word is right to all, forever, because he is God.

blah, blah, blah

You're talking about identifying norms of behavior or attributes in man or beast, and making those norms a moral prescription. Which is exactly what I said. In the above example, those norms are conveniently re-labeled as "the will of god". :vomit;

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Or,

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because indivuduals should not be descriminated against for irrlevant reasons. All men are created equal, it is a part of human nature. All humans, universally, regardless of culture or time, have the right to equal treatment. This right is an inalienable aspect of human nature.

These are examples of a natural law moral theory. The natural law legal theory states that there is an overlap between what is "right" morally and what should be the law. I.e., it is wrong to kill, and that is why it is illegal to kill. This is in opposition to the positivists who would say that it is illegal to kill because the goverment says so, and they have the power to enforce their wishes. The two theories are often have the same proponants, but are not dependent on each other.

To learn more, check out the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a fun site to browse.

Both are natural law arguments, though they are in direct opposition. Who taught you your definition, aidanjim, a grade 8 teacher? Or a poorly written anti-clerical pamphlet from the 18th century?

I gave a stripped down version of what I think is the essence of natural law within Catholic dogma. I'm not interested in your (or the catholic) window dressing on natural law. I'm interested in the logical fallacy that lies at it's heart - i.e., the turning of a specific fact (a norm of behavior, for example) into a moral prescription.

The only worthwhile point you've made, above, is that natural law arguments can be made in opposition to, or in support of, homosexuality. That raises the question, why does the vatican make natural law arguemtns against homosexuality, when in fact it is not difficult to generate natural law arguments presenting homosexual behaviors as a moral good.
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Natural law isn't a theory saying that what we see in Nature is what's morally desirable. Instead, it says humans already know all the basic moral precepts from birth.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: dornick
Natural law isn't a theory saying that what we see in Nature is what's morally desirable. Instead, it says humans already know all the basic moral precepts from birth.

In that case, please present a natural law moral argument against homosexuality, without reference to nature (and by nature, I include *human nature*, temperament, personality, the physical body we inhabits, the way we reproduce, etc.)

 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
NO, you are misdefining natural law. It does not rely on observation of the natural world. It relys on two things: objectivity and universality. It also relies on what is seen to be a fundamental part of the "nature" of the universe and humanity, but it does not rely on cultural or societal norms for that justification. Ever.

The child-sacrifices of Baal are evil, even though they are a part of that society. Why? Yehowa says so.

The practice of slavery is wrong, even though it has been a societal practice everywhere. Why? Because every man has the right to freedom.

These are statements of natural law.

Any human rights argument, including rights for homosexuals, relies on arguments of natural law, because the very existence of the concept of human rights relies on the concept of "rights" being a fundamental part of human nature. And that this human nature is universal and objective.

One could say that it is always, everywhere and forever morally required that everyone wear purple hats, and that this is objectively "right," because it is a part of human nature to wear purple hats. This would be an assertion of natural law, even though it is not a societal norm anywhere. It is the attributes objectivity and universality that defines natural law as a moral theory.

If you deny natural law as a moral theory, then you deny yourself the ability to use rights-based arguments, unless they are founded in utilitarianist or relevatist arguments. Relevatist arguments are about as convincing to religious people as religious arguments are to secularists, so that's out. That means that you have to conclusively prove that gay marriage will optimize the overall amount of happiness in society over all alternatives. Considering how many religious people it will upset, that will be a tough argument to make.

Gay marriage works best as a rights-based argument. Denying natural law denies that argument. I'd suggest you stop shooting yourself in the foot.

Edit: I just realized that you can make a strong utilitarian agrument for a rights-based legal code (a la J.S.Mill), and as such get around my problem. Is that where you were going with this?

2nd edit: You are also misunderstanding the Church's philosophical foundation for its position. It does not look at a norm and call it God's will, it looks at a revelation handed to them by God centuries before the foundation of the church and obey it. That's how they see it, at least. In theory.

3rd edit: I retract the above because Utilitarianism itself is a Natrual Law moral theory, in that it posits that human happiness or "utility" is an objective, universal end and that this conclusion is derived by estimations of human nature.
 

dornick

Senior member
Jan 30, 2005
751
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: dornick
Natural law isn't a theory saying that what we see in Nature is what's morally desirable. Instead, it says humans already know all the basic moral precepts from birth.

In that case, please present a natural law moral argument against homosexuality, without reference to nature (and by nature, I include *human nature*, temperament, personality, the physical body we inhabits, the way we reproduce, etc.)
You're right. You can't argue against homosexuality on the basis of natural law. In fact, it's impossible to logically prove anything because so far we can't prove that people know moral precepts from the start. I just wanted to point out the error in your definition.
 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: dornick
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: dornick
Natural law isn't a theory saying that what we see in Nature is what's morally desirable. Instead, it says humans already know all the basic moral precepts from birth.

In that case, please present a natural law moral argument against homosexuality, without reference to nature (and by nature, I include *human nature*, temperament, personality, the physical body we inhabits, the way we reproduce, etc.)
You're right. You can't argue against homosexuality on the basis of natural law. In fact, it's impossible to logically prove anything because so far we can't prove that people know moral precepts from the start. I just wanted to point out the error in your definition.

That's not true, Aquinas was the classical proponant of natural law, and he thought that it can be derived with reason.