--
Premise:
Regardless whether same-sex attraction is voluntary or not, genetic or not, homosexual actions are unnatural and therefore immoral, since they go against human nature.
Or if you can follow the drift: 1+1 does not = 2, but 0... And 0 + 0 does not = 1 but 0...
So in evaluating the question of homosexual marriage and relationships, we must consider the above premise (i.e., that homosexual acts are immoral) rather than rely on the benefits or set backs thereof.
I may also add to the conversation the following point:
If homosexual marriage is accepted on the basis that the couple consists of consenting adults, then what will we say to polygamy or incest? They, too, are consenting adults, no?
Would it be discrimination to say that you can't marry your sister or aunt, or have more than one spouse?
This can be a discussion strictly to homosexuality from a natural law point of view (i.e., no God, no supernatural revelation, no religion), or you can throw God in if you want. Either way it goes.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to further discuss
1) What Turha101 said concerning "sexual discrimination," (http://j1militans.blogspot.com/2010/06/frustration-with-various-moral-issues.html), and,
2) What Pat said about God "hating" gays, or his comments about what the Bible says about them, etc...
But whatever goes.
No Google account needed, but recommended.
God bless, pax Christi,
J1Militans
What do you mean homosexual actions are unnatural? Homosexuality happens in nature, we can observe homosexuality within the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is natural.
ReplyDeleteOh and what do you excatly mean when you said homosexuality goes against human nature?
''If homosexual marriage is accepted on the basis that the couple consists of consenting adults''
It should also be accepted because peoples sexual orientation, should not affect who they can marry.
''then what will we say to polygamy or incest? They, too, are consenting adults, no?''
Well this is not really the same thing.
In the case of banning homosexual marriage, they are basicly banning something because of someones sexual orientation, i dont really see how polygamy, or incest has anything to do with this topic, since it does not have anything to do with ones sexual orientation.
However if you want, we could talk about those aswell.
About polygamy.
Personally i dont see a problem with it, as long as all the consulting adults ( partners ) agree with the decision. If for an example, 5 adults, all loved each others, and they all would want to get married to each other, i see no reason to stop them.
Sure it would probalby look a bit strange, because its such an unusual thing to happen, however if it did happen, i would not be against it.
About incest.
Same thing about incest. If a sister, and a brother, really loved each others, and they knew that they were related, but still wanted to get married, i would not have a problem with it, as long as they would both be adults.
This would again be a really strange thing, and would not feel right for most people. However i see no reason to stop them from doing what they want, and get married.
The thing is, even if we allowed brothers and sisters to get married, would it hurt anyone? Would anyone elses marriage get damage from it? Ofcourse not. I dont see a problem with consenting adults geting married.
''Would it be discrimination to say that you can't marry your sister or aunt, or have more than one spouse?''
Sure you could call that discrimination, however banning homosexual marriage is sexualdiscrimination, which banning polygamy, and incest is not.
Polygamy or incest has nothing to do with your sexual orientation.
Damn i said sexual orientation alot :D
No time yet! We chose the worse time of the year to debate and discuss these things haha...
ReplyDeleteI'll throw in this, though, for now, till I can read and answer all.
----
"Sure you could call that discrimination, however banning homosexual marriage is sexualdiscrimination, which banning polygamy, and incest is not.
Polygamy or incest has nothing to do with your sexual orientation."
But. What makes homosexuality better than polygamy or incest? Sexual orientation vs... sexual desire... I'd say perverted sexual desire!
That's a good point to look at m ore, though: sexual orientation itself is not wrong, just as having desires to have sex with any girl you see is not necessarily wrong. It's what you do with it that can be wrong or right.
In a Christian worldview you have sex with the woman you love, and only her, because you can only love one person fully.
As in regards to homosexuality, the premise is that homosexuality itself is not wrong, but homosexual actions. They are unnatural and go against man's nature and the telos (end, purpose) of human sexuality.
Animals sometimes show homosexual tendencies too, but they are not moral agents: they cannot choose between right and wrong, between good and evil. They may have will, (they will to do this or that), but they have no reason to tell them what's morally right or wrong.
Also, animals sometimes eat their own children... Does this mean that it's ok for a human to eat his own kid?
(I'm trying to encompass as many objections as I can think of, not necessarily that you're saying this)
But the point is this.
If we use the point that homosexual marriage should be allowed because we can't discriminate people based on their sexual orientation and desires, then how will we tell polygamists and incestists (?) that they can't marry? After all, they also have sexual desires to be fulfilled, and we can't possible tell them no, can we?
Do you see the point?
In short:
1. Same sex attraction is not wrong in itself.
2. Homosexual actions are a perversion of human sexuality. The same goes for incest or polygamy, or clearly with rape.
3. To let homosexual marriage to take place, it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to make a case against polygamy and incest, and eventually, bestiality or other forms of sexual perversions.
I go!
PaX!
"But. What makes homosexuality better than polygamy or incest?"
ReplyDeleteYour actually forgetting something, that can be divided up in:
What makes heterosexuality better than heterosexual polygamy or heterosexual incest?
What makes homosexuality better than homosexual polygamy or homosexual incest?
Would you consider heterosexual incest or heterosexual polygamy a argument against heterosexuality? If not, your whole argument that homosexuality is immoral because you consider incest or polygamy immoral falls appart.
"As in regards to homosexuality, the premise is that homosexuality itself is not wrong, but homosexual actions. They are unnatural and go against man's nature and the telos (end, purpose) of human sexuality."
So which homosexual actions are wrong? Anal or oral sex? And if you consider anal sex as wrong, whats wrong with lesbian actions? Are the heterosexual couples that have anal or oral sex doing something morally wrong?
Now if you consider sex only to be right when its done to concieve children (since thats what i take you meant with, fulfilling the end purpose), would you then consider sex between infertile couples to be wrong too? Or the use of contraception to be morally wrong? This would also apply to sex in situations when the woman cant get pregnant, like when she already is pregnant or at the wrong time of the menstruation cycle or when she has passed the menopause. Would you consider sex at those times morally wrong?
The only reason i stated the fact that homosexuality happens in nature was that you said it was unatural. Note i never said that since something is natural (happens in nature) therefore it would be moral. I agree all things that happen in nature are not what we would consider moral, so isnt saying homosexuality is unnatural (even if it isnt) kinda a moot point.