Same-sex marriage is unnatural
Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
As the New York Times (Feb. 23, 1911, p. 23) phrased it: The “white and black races should live apart. Their hybridization forms a degenerate type; anthropologists declare that some of the most cruel and treacherous specimens of humanity are to be found among “mottled” negroes.”A Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good … (in accordance with) the God of nature.”
Same-sex marriage is contrary to God and unBiblical
The trial judge who convicted the Lovings of illegal interracial marriage wrote
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.This attitude was wide-spread among Christians. As recently as 1980 R. J. Rushdoony reiterated the Biblical argument against interracial marriage:
The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.And even today, 16% of evangelicals continue to oppose interracial marriage.
Same-sex marriage is against the traditional definition of marriage
Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”
(Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19, 1996)
Same-sex marriage is a slippery slope
R. D. McIlwaine, arguing against interracial marriage in the Loving case, made a slippery-slope argument, too:
It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.Think of the children!
It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only uponA host of other arguments
the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a
marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such
inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 26 and n.5 (summarizing the State's
argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))
So, yes - really the same arguments all over again. Haven't we learned anything from our history?
Inter-racial marriage simply isn't contrary to natural law & of course as noted such unions produce children.
ReplyDeleteBut since when do two males by themselves produce children or two females by themselves?
I don't see an equivalence.
Enjoy people.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality and Natural Law
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/natural-law-and-homosexuality-made-simple/
The Libertarian Case Against Gay Marriage
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-libertarian-case-against-gay-marriage/
What is or is not against "natural law" is arbitrary, as a study of history shows.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality is actually quite natural, though most people are not aware of it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
Second, the purpose of marriage is not just procreation, as millions of deliberately childless couples will attest to.
Third, studies show that same sex couples are as good as hetero couples at raising kids that have been adopted, birthed by artificial insemination or surrogate mothers.
No matter what angle you look at it, the natural law argument fails.
Nicely put, Hunt. It's utterly dishonest for organizations like NOM to use the argument that children are better off in families with a mother and a father - as you say, studies show that children of same-sex couples do just as well as kids in other two-parent families.
ReplyDeleteBut that argument is a bad one, regardless of what the science shows. Suppose studies showed that children of a truck driver and a physicist had more problems than other children. Would we make it illegal for truck drivers to marry physicists?
Good point, although I still think there's utility in bringing up these studies, since they directly contradict one of the lines of argument against non-traditional marriage. The fact that it's a flawed counter argument just reflects that the original argument is flawed. However, I doubt the truck driver/physicist example will sway those against same-sex marriage.
DeleteAlso, while still acknowledging the point, those studies also seem to play a big part in courtroom decisions related to s/s marriage. So the best way to regard them might be as parts of an evidence based argument in favor of s/s marriage, while being a bad argument on their own.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete>Third, studies show that same sex couples are as good as hetero couples at raising kids that have been adopted, birthed by artificial insemination or surrogate mothers.
ReplyDeleteThat's questionable.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302873/are-gay-parents-worse-parents-mona-charen
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302324/do-children-gay-parents-do-just-well-new-social-science-debate-maggie-gallagher
>Homosexuality is actually quite natural, though most people are not aware of it:
Are you judging nature by an Aristotilan or Utilitarian definition of nature?
>Second, the purpose of marriage is not just procreation, as millions of deliberately childless couples will attest to.
Marriage without the intention to have any children sans a grave reason is also wrong.
>No matter what angle you look at it, the natural law argument fails.
Rather it is not engaged. You are assuming an implicit Utilitarian and consequentialist theory here Ad Hoc & judging the argument by those standards.
You haven't given me a reason to accept Utilitarian or consequentialist moral theory over and against Natural Law theory. You just assume it. Thus you haven't made an argument.
>But that argument is a bad one, regardless of what the science shows. Suppose studies showed that children of a truck driver and a physicist had more problems than other children. Would we make it illegal for truck drivers to marry physicists?
Classic consequentialist non-essentalist argument. But being either a truck drive vs a Physicist is not equivalent to being a male or a female.
I'm afraid till we get you up to speed on Natural Law theory every object you give me will be a non-starter.
We are still trying to get you fimilar with metaphysics & Philosophy. It might be too much on your plate. Also I confess moral theory is not my strong suit so I am not the one to teach you anything.
"Are you judging nature by an Aristotilan or Utilitarian definition of nature?"
DeleteNatural, as in this is how it appears in nature.
"Marriage without the intention to have any children sans a grave reason is also wrong."
Without resorting to religion, how is it wrong?
>Natural, as in this is how it appears in nature.
DeleteThat does not answer my question. Therefore I think it reasonable to assume you at minimum don't mean the Aristotelian view.
It could probably apply to the Aristotelian view as well, assuming the foundation of that view is based on what appears in nature. It's hard to see what else it could be based on, some fictional account? All philosophy must ultimately rest on a set of assumptions. Those assumptions are rarely derived without any empirical observation at all. This seems to be a general complaint here. For instance, metaphysics relies on empirical observation. What is natural must also rely on what we observe in nature. It puts the cart before the horse to think that nature should be what we think it should be.
DeleteYou didn't answer my question either.
>Those assumptions are rarely derived without any empirical observation at all.
DeleteThat is not true. Idealism & anything post Descartes starts with the mind not the senses.
>For instance, metaphysics relies on empirical observation.
No in Aristotle is starts with what is first in the senses but then moves on to the intellect. Classic Skepticism doubts the reality of the intellect.
>What is natural must also rely on what we observe in nature.
In which case do we accept final causality or not & do you know the difference between Paley's faulty mechanistic view vs Aristotle view of final causality?
>It puts the cart before the horse to think that nature should be what we think it should be.
Rather we have no common ground & I already reject empiricism and positivism.
That last bit was directed at Prof Robert.
ReplyDeleteSome links I have to brush up more on Natural Law theory.
ReplyDeletehttp://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/walters-on-tls.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/does-morality-depend-on-god.html
The arguments here seem like they can be used in any instance of something that someone considers immoral. It should not come as a surprise to anyone to see them more than once.
ReplyDeleteA progressive liberal who is against gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteWhy I’m coming out... against gay marriage
by Sean collins
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12434/
Interesting.
Sorry, I've been on vacation and haven't had a chance to respond. Ben, the Regnerus study cited in your first link is badly flawed. He compares children of "intact married-parent homes" with children "whose parents had been involved in same-sex relationships." Clearly the comparison should be with children of intact same-sex homes. Otherwise the conclusions are worthless.
ReplyDeleteWe can go further and wonder why Regnerus chose this particular comparison. Perhaps he did the relevant comparison, and found no difference? Otherwise, why choose such a ridiculously skewed statistic?
>Otherwise, why choose such a ridiculously skewed statistic?
DeleteMaybe because he doesn't have the available sampling in the general population?
I read recently another statistic that in counties that have legalized gay marriage over 96% of the gay population doesn't take advantage of it.
All this clamor for "gay marriage" radically redefining it for the vast majority of the population. Demonizing persons who dissent in good conscious with unfair epitaphs like "bigot" and only 4% of the gay population does it?
Lovely! I feel as though I have been had.
Anyway if this is the case then how many intact same sex parent homes are there compared to straight ones?
BTW an interesting tangent this business that Gay marriage won't lead to Polygamy?
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/06/27/the_bigots_against_marriage_equality
QUOTE "polyamorists have challenged the Green Party’s declaration that they support “Marriage for All.” The Australian press reported that, “The Greens have declared they have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage as they pursue their case for same-sex marriage. Greens marriage equality spokeswoman Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has declared . . . . ‘Our bill clearly states marriage “between TWO consenting adults” and that is the Greens’ position.’”
Well if it's "bigotry" for me to say Marriage is a union between one man and one woman then would you be a "bigot" Prof Oerter if you said a marriage is only between TWO consenting adults? Or do you endorse polyamorous marriage as well?
Maybe Vox Day was right? In the early days of the American Republic there was no such thing as a marriage license. Weddings where registered in churches not city halls.
Maybe the government needs to get out of the marriage business all together?
Good luck coming up with a useful legal definition of marriage.
Ben, your logic skills seem to deteriorate on this topic.
ReplyDeleteIf 96% of (say) white Americans choose not to take advantage of the legality of interracial marriage, is that an argument against it?
With regard to the term "bigot": I did NOT accuse you of bigotry because you are against gay marriage. I read the section of Prof. Feser's book arguing from natural law against gay marriage, and I detected not a whiff of bigotry. (And believe me, I was looking for it.)
Your comment I was responding to was when you declared that gay people SHOULDN'T want marriage rights. I think when someone who doesn't belong to a group expounds on what the members of that group "should" want - and ignores what they ACTUALLY want - that is a good indication of bigotry.
I have several friends in my neighborhood: same-sex couples whose kids go to the same schools as mine, belong to the same clubs, and so forth. Who are you to declare that they shouldn't want that? That they "should" prefer to be relegated (by law!) to ghetto of "gay sub-culture"?
Ben wrote,
"BTW an interesting tangent this business that Gay marriage won't lead to Polygamy?"
As we have seen, the slippery slope argument was used against interracial marriage, too. Do you think it was a good argument back then? "Look, if we make interracial marriage legal, then polygamy will be next and men will want to marry men and ...." Is that a respectable argument against interracial marriage?
Finally (going back to your June 15 comment), natural law, utilitarianism, and Aristotelianism don't come into it. The question is not whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong. The question is whether it should be legal.
A Catholic might think it is wrong for a divorced person to re-marry, but still think it should be legal.
There are, in fact, some conservative arguments for same-sex marriage. For example, why do we have common-law marriage? The main reason is so that society can hold both parents responsible for any children of that marriage. Now think of a gay couple that has a child, through adoption or artificial insemination. What happens if that couple splits up? Right now, one person can walk away without taking any responsibility for the child(ren). Does that seem fair?
Marriage is an institution that promotes social stability. Prohibiting it just makes no sense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete>Ben, your logic skills seem to deteriorate on this topic.
DeleteLargely because we don't have a logical argument here. We have heavy handed politics, some emotion, a few cheap shots and some meta-sophistry. Nothing more.
>If 96% of (say) white Americans choose not to take advantage of the legality of interracial marriage, is that an argument against it?
Rather comparing silly claims inter-racial marriges are "un-natural" with actual natural law arguments against homosexual ones is a catagory mistake. A black man & a white woman both have an essential human nature and a complimentary sexual one for reproducing children. Skin color is a non-essental secondary trait that has nothing to do with human nature. It's like claiming my marriage to my wife is "un-natural" because I have brown eyes and she has hazel. You can't make a natural law argument against inter-racial marriage. You can against so called gay marriage". It is racist to be against inter-racial marriage on grounds of nature since you are implying blacks and whites don't have the same human nature. It's not racist but realistic to realize males & males or females/females do not have a complimentary sexual nature. It's like marrying yourself which is irrational.
>With regard to the term "bigot": I did NOT accuse you of bigotry because you are against gay marriage.
That is nothing but weasel words on your part Prof in this very blog post you compare opposition to gay marriage with racist opposition to inter-racial marriage. Would you call someone a bigot who is against inter-racial marriage? I would natural law & moral law would demand no less. Yet you think I am not a bigot for merely being against gay marriage but compare all people who are to racist bigots?
Seriously!
>Your comment I was responding to was when you declared that gay people SHOULDN'T want marriage rights.
Question begging. We have not established gays have any type of "right" to marry persons of the same gender as themselves or what would the basis be for that so called right? You just assume they have this right by liberal fiat & try to brow beat me into excepting it. No effort to learn why principled opposition exists or what their philosophy is in denying it. Just cheap superfical comparisons with rascists who don't want white people marrying blacks. This to you is "reasoning"? No wonder your critique of the first way was so wrong?
part II
Delete>I think when someone who doesn't belong to a group expounds on what the members of that group "should" want - and ignores what they ACTUALLY want - that is a good indication of bigotry.
I simply put forth an argument I read from a some "queer theorist" whose name I forgot. You argument is with her & I doubt you will win her over with your obvious heterosexist-centrist point of view.
>I have several friends in my neighborhood: same-sex couples whose kids go to the same schools as mine, belong to the same clubs, and so forth. Who are you to declare that they shouldn't want that? That they "should" prefer to be relegated (by law!) to ghetto of "gay sub-culture"?
Where did I ever advocate puting gays in a isolated community and building walls around them? That would be stupid. Now you are projecting your own paranoid bigotry towards religious convervatives on me.
>Finally (going back to your June 15 comment), natural law, utilitarianism, and Aristotelianism don't come into it. The question is not whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong. The question is whether it should be legal.
Well heavy handed comparisons with racists & their laughable & easily disprovable
claims inter-racial marriage is un-natural doesn't make that argument anymore than "God hates fags" makes the case Jesus loves sinners including gay ones.
>A Catholic might think it is wrong for a divorced person to re-marry, but still think it should be legal.
We don't it more complex there your simplistic characterization.
Anullments can only be granted after civil divorces. Also civil divorce is not the same as re-marriage. Also at the very least in a society that allows divorce there exists the potential for mere natural marriages. Only a sacramental marriage is unbreakable save by death. But a lot of people who marry may have a defect in cult, matter or intent thus there exists the potential they are not in a sacremental marriage(of course they definitely are not if one or both partners is not baptized).
Do you even realize Prof Oreter that church annulled marriage only mean no sacramental marriage took place? We believe a punitive natural marriage existed in a declared null marriage thus the children born of it are "legitimate" and the marriage is not fornication.
>There are, in fact, some conservative arguments for same-sex marriage. For example, why do we have common-law marriage? The main reason is so that society can hold both parents responsible for any children of that marriage.
You just told me it's not about utilitarianism now your giving me a utilitarian argument? Sereriously Prof did you think I wouldn't notice?
Make up your mind or learn philosophy.
Part III
Delete>Now think of a gay couple that has a child, through adoption or artificial insemination. What happens if that couple splits up? Right now, one person can walk away without taking any responsibility for the child(ren). Does that seem fair?
Tell that to Lisa Miller. She is a gay woman who became a born again Christian and has repudiated her former gay lifestyle. Yet some fruitbat liberal court in Maine is trying to take her biological daugher away from her and give the little girl to her former lover. They had a "civil union" yet her girlfriend never formally adopted the child Lisa had from artifical insemination. Now Lisa is on the run being pursuded by the FBI for "kidnaping her own flesh and blood" & not turning her over to a woman who is not her biological mother.
Sick & bigoted if you ask me. Would the liberal court in Maine take a child away from her biological Mother & give her to a man she accuse of sexually abusing her & the man wasn't even the child's father or adopted her nor was she married to the man?
Would that happen? No it wouldn't. But PC covers a multitude of sins.
>Marriage is an institution that promotes social stability. Prohibiting it just makes no sense.
You have no objective definition of marriage. No even a philosophical understanding of the issues and you have the nerve to say I am not being rational here.
Seriously?
I like you prof but you really need to learn some philosophy. If only to be a coherent Atheist. Man can't live by physics alone. I'm just saying.
Cheers.
PS I don't bear you any malice for calling me a bigot and the other inconsistencies you have displayed here. I merely take delight in pointing out your inconsistancies. Don't take it personally. I don't.
Cheers again and Peace be with you
Ben, you're still completely missing the point. It's the logical structure of your arguments that I'm using against you. If you think a low rate of gay marriage provides an argument against it, then you are logically committed to accept that a low rate of interracial marriage provides an argument against interracial marriage.
DeleteIt would help if you actually provided some sort of logical argument in the first place. But you haven't. "Truck drivers rarely marry physicists. Therefore it should be illegal for truck drivers to marry physicists." I mean, seriously! That's your argument! It's such an obvious non sequitur that I hardly feel it needs to be stated. Yet you continue to fail to see that.
Ben wrote, "Where did I ever advocate puting gays in a isolated community and building walls around them? "
Legal walls can be just as damaging as physical walls. Just look at the segregated South of 50 years ago.
Your own words: "Because it seems to me being both gay and for "gay marriage" is tantamount to saying "You straight people are the norm and normal & I am neither till I imitate you as much as possible and gain your approval rather then pursue & value relationship conventions within the gay sub-culture.""
And don't try to pass this off as the argument of "some queer theorist": by "It seems to me...." you claim this argument as your own.
Ben wrote, "You just told me it's not about utilitarianism now your giving me a utilitarian argument? Sereriously Prof did you think I wouldn't notice?"
DeleteYou're still confusing the moral issue with the legal issue.
My underlying assumption is that it is not legitimate to base law on religious arguments, because of the separation of church and state. But it seems obvious that law may be based on practical considerations - otherwise, what basis is there?
Again, the discussion is not about whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong, but about whether it should be legal or illegal. If you think you have a valid argument why it should be illegal, let's hear it. So far all you've had is non sequiturs and religious arguments.
>Ben, you're still completely missing the point. It's the logical structure of your arguments that I'm using against you.
DeleteI would call them fallacies of equivocation not "using logical structure". But that's just me.
>If you think a low rate of gay marriage provides an argument against it, then you are logically committed to accept that a low rate of interracial marriage provides an argument against interracial marriage.
Question begging since you have not shown via natural law or essentalist philosophical theory how gay "marriage" and inter-racial marriage are equivolent. You simply assume it without argument. How is that logical? It simply isn't.
BTW marriage is still pretty high among heterosexuals.
>Legal walls can be just as damaging as physical walls. Just look at the segregated South of 50 years ago.
Again I still don't see an equivalence between inter-racial marriage which is in harmony with natural law vs gay marriage or self-marriage or other such novelties which are not?
>And don't try to pass this off as the argument of "some queer theorist": by "It seems to me...." you claim this argument as your own.
Prof I know my own mind & I know where I read this argument and of course I would claim it because the author of it & I have parallel thinking. It's no different then when I heard the Taped testimony of a Protestant Minsiter who was converting to Catholicism saying "What's the sense in Protestants joining the Catholic Church if Catholic Churches in America are trying to act more Protestant?". Amen!!!!!
That is a similar sentiment.
>You're still confusing the moral issue with the legal issue.
I already voiced my pseudo-libertarian sentiments maybe the government should get out of the marriage business. You ignored that.
>My underlying assumption is that it is not legitimate to base law on religious arguments, because of the separation of church and state. But it seems obvious that law may be based on practical considerations - otherwise, what basis is there?
It's based on natural law and essentialist philosophy which precedes Christian religion. Pretending that is not part of the equation is short sighted IMHO.
>Again, the discussion is not about whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong, but about whether it should be legal or illegal.
Why because you think it is wrong to deny "equal" marriage rights to gays?
This is logical thinking? I think not.
>If you think you have a valid argument why it should be illegal, let's hear it. So far all you've had is non sequiturs and religious arguments.
You keep moving the goal posts. It's not about right and wrong till it is?
Seriously?
There is nothing coherent here for me to interact. There is a lot of emotion but little philosophy and we need philosophy to settle this issue.
Cheers.
"As we have seen, the slippery slope argument was used against interracial marriage, too. Do you think it was a good argument back then? "Look, if we make interracial marriage legal, then polygamy will be next and men will want to marry men and ...." Is that a respectable argument against interracial marriage?"
ReplyDeleteI think the question here is, by what principle can you deny one a consenting polygamous marriage?
see here:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/meta-sophistry.html
No, Steve, the question is by what principle you can deny the consenting same-sex marriage. Polygamy is a different issue and ought to be dealt with on its own. Or are you implying that the slippery-slope argument is a GOOD argument against interracial marriage?
DeleteThe Feser post you cite is a classic straw-man argument. I don't think there is anyone who actually claims that "what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another." For instance, we deny marriage licenses when someone is underage, or the two are too closely related. The reasons for doing so will no doubt occur to you if you think about it for a bit. The question is (again): what reason is there for denying a same-sex couple a marriage license?
DeleteTo say that you have no valid argument for same-sex marriage that cannot also be used for polygamous marriage is NOT a slippery-slope argument. It is more akin to a reductio. I was hoping you would learn that from the Feser post, but perhaps I linked to the wrong one.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, you are the one arguing for a change from what is normative; therefore the burden is on you to provide a positive argument for that change. In doing so, I would avoid arguments that turn out to be as equally valid for polygamous, and yes, even sibling marriage.