Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

    Are there any good philosophical arguments against same-sex marriage?

    I was thinking that the purposes of marriage include the following: to provide companionship, to procreate, and to provide an environment for raising children. Same-sex marriages cannot fulfill all of those purposes so they should not be allowed. Someone could object by saying that this argument leads to the conclusion that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry because they cannot fulfill all of those purposes. How would you respond this?

    Have there been any social scientific studies done investigating whether same-sex couples can provide a good environment for raising children?

    Do you think that the only good arguments against same-sex marriage are biblical arguments?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
    Are there any good philosophical arguments against same-sex marriage?

    I was thinking that the purposes of marriage include the following: to provide companionship, to procreate, and to provide an environment for raising children. Same-sex marriages cannot fulfill all of those purposes so they should not be allowed. Someone could object by saying that this argument leads to the conclusion that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry because they cannot fulfill all of those purposes. How would you respond this?

    Have there been any social scientific studies done investigating whether same-sex couples can provide a good environment for raising children?

    Do you think that the only good arguments against same-sex marriage are biblical arguments?
    First, the spiritual Laws of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith consider same sex intercourse against the Law of God. These are Spiritual Laws of these religions. In the modern diverse world of beliefs and life-styles, and the separation of religion and state make it difficult to justify religious Spiritual Laws that are not values and beliefs held by different diverse groups in a modern society.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Something I often wonder. Marriage as it's practiced today is more of a legal contract than a matter of companionship or procreation. That we do allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry- or heterosexual couples that may only want the legal, contractual rights to marry- undercuts that argument. We also don't terminate marriage on the grounds that someone is an unfit parent or partner, if it isn't voluntary. If marriage was still solely a religious or familial institution, I think you'd be able to make those points. Does the state have an interest in insuring only a heterosexual couple contracts for companionship or shared responsibility for raising children?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
        Do you think that the only good arguments against same-sex marriage are biblical arguments?
        If there is no teleology (inherent or designed purpose) for human sexuality then I can not see any good argument against same sex marriage, but then again I can't see any good argument against bestiality either.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          If there is no teleology (inherent or designed purpose) for human sexuality then I can not see any good argument against same sex marriage, but then again I can't see any good argument against bestiality either.
          I would say that animals can't consent to actions or legal contracts. Would be an explanation for why its acceptable to own animals but not humans- their consent isn't a factor. Animal cruelty is defined by a set of actions/inactions done to them by humans, regardless of whether they agree they're being abused.

          However, I can't see any good legal argument against the morality of bestiality... and I believe this is a potential criticism of our legal system, that it doesn't allow for moral arguments. Consent is not a good standard to determine right and wrong, in all cases.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LeaC View Post
            I would say that animals can't consent to actions or legal contracts. Would be an explanation for why its acceptable to own animals but not humans- their consent isn't a factor. Animal cruelty is defined by a set of actions/inactions done to them by humans, regardless of whether they agree they're being abused.

            However, I can't see any good legal argument against the morality of bestiality... and I believe this is a potential criticism of our legal system, that it doesn't allow for moral arguments. Consent is not a good standard to determine right and wrong, in all cases.
            Right, but we still kill and eat animals without their consent. So the argument from consent is a non-starter.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              What I'm trying to say is that legal contracts require parties capable of giving consent. Owning an animal does not(no contract for that), eating or killing an animal does not(provided you follow the legal requirements for it). Bestiality is generally considered animal abuse, because we also assume sexual activity requires consent of both parties. Two animals can't give legal consent to it either, but we don't tend to care. Under most circumstances, children aren't bound to legal contracts either.

              So, I don't believe bestiality or pedophilia are going to be good legal comparisons to same-sex marriages.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by LeaC View Post
                What I'm trying to say is that legal contracts require parties capable of giving consent. Owning an animal does not(no contract for that), eating or killing an animal does not(provided you follow the legal requirements for it). Bestiality is generally considered animal abuse, because we also assume sexual activity requires consent of both parties. Two animals can't give legal consent to it either, but we don't tend to care. Under most circumstances, children aren't bound to legal contracts either.

                So, I don't believe bestiality or pedophilia are going to be good legal comparisons to same-sex marriages.
                Then perhaps you missed my point. I don't think there are good non-biblical arguments against homosexual marriage or bestiality. That if there is no design or teleology for human sexuality then it is all up for grabs. So unless we begin with a similar assumption (which we won't with the non-believer) we can never find common ground. Of course without said teleology I don't see why or how the non-believer could object to bestiality on rational grounds.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Then perhaps you missed my point. I don't think there are good non-biblical arguments against homosexual marriage or bestiality. That if there is no design or teleology for human sexuality then it is all up for grabs. So unless we begin with a similar assumption (which we won't with the non-believer) we can never find common ground. Of course without said teleology I don't see why or how the non-believer could object to bestiality on rational grounds.
                  Mostly I agree with you. But I'm saying the argument based on consent is that it applies to some acts and not others. Only rational agents can give it, and the assumption is that it does apply to human sexuality, necessary for the sexual acts to be moral. My problem with consent-based arguments is that they depend on a legal definition of consent, which isn't a useful standard for morality. Laws can change, and consent-based reasoning suggests that if they won't be punished for doing it, it must be moral. Thus, if someone wanted to commit bestiality, they would need to successfully argue that animals can give meaningful consent(or that sexual acts don't always require it), and have the law changed.

                  I do believe that it's possible to argue against bestiality on the basis of consent, though, and I'm not convinced that it's flawed only because we don't require it for every act.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LeaC View Post
                    Thus, if someone wanted to commit bestiality, they would need to successfully argue that animals can give meaningful consent(or that sexual acts don't always require it), and have the law changed.

                    I do believe that it's possible to argue against bestiality on the basis of consent, though, and I'm not convinced that it's flawed only because we don't require it for every act.
                    And this is what I don't get. You would need consent to have sex with the sheep but not to kill and eat it?
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
                      Are there any good philosophical arguments against same-sex marriage?

                      I was thinking that the purposes of marriage include the following: to provide companionship, to procreate, and to provide an environment for raising children. Same-sex marriages cannot fulfill all of those purposes so they should not be allowed. Someone could object by saying that this argument leads to the conclusion that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry because they cannot fulfill all of those purposes. How would you respond this?

                      Have there been any social scientific studies done investigating whether same-sex couples can provide a good environment for raising children?

                      Do you think that the only good arguments against same-sex marriage are biblical arguments?
                      The short answer is no, there aren't good philosophical arguments against same-sex marriage.

                      Ability to procreate, as you say, isn't a criterion for marriage. Neither is raising children, for that matter. This isn't limited to infertile couples, either, since it would also eliminate marriage above a certain age or those who have had surgical removal of their reproductive organs.

                      There have been a lot of 'scientific' studies done about same-sex marriage and their ability to raise children. They tend to be deeply flawed.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        If there is no teleology (inherent or designed purpose) for human sexuality then I can not see any good argument against same sex marriage, but then again I can't see any good argument against bestiality either.
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Right, but we still kill and eat animals without their consent. So the argument from consent is a non-starter.
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Then perhaps you missed my point. I don't think there are good non-biblical arguments against homosexual marriage or bestiality. That if there is no design or teleology for human sexuality then it is all up for grabs. So unless we begin with a similar assumption (which we won't with the non-believer) we can never find common ground. Of course without said teleology I don't see why or how the non-believer could object to bestiality on rational grounds.
                        I think there's obviously an inherent purpose in sexuality, even while we can agree that it's not limited to procreation. There's a lot about intimacy that's helpful in developing and strengthening bonds. We see that play out in non-human animals, as well.

                        I agree with you that an argument from consent doesn't work in a bestiality discussion. You're right that we don't require consent to do anything else to them. I think *some* animals can give consent after a fashion (mostly observable behaviors indicating displeasure or lack thereof), but that's not reliable enough to support any sort of moral or legal code.

                        However, I think we can easily point to certain interactions as pathological. Bestiality and other forms of animal abuse fit into that description very neatly. Even if we don't fully condemn it as immoral*, we can treat people who engage in such behaviors much like we would those with other mental disorders.









                        *Which isn't to say it's not; only that we don't have to commit to that stance.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And this is what I don't get. You would need consent to have sex with the sheep but not to kill and eat it?
                          Is this remotely related to the subject of the thread. How about sex with aliens?
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Then perhaps you missed my point. I don't think there are good non-biblical arguments against homosexual marriage or bestiality. That if there is no design or teleology for human sexuality then it is all up for grabs. So unless we begin with a similar assumption (which we won't with the non-believer) we can never find common ground. Of course without said teleology I don't see why or how the non-believer could object to bestiality on rational grounds.
                            That is true. If there is no goal or purpose for marriage, then societies can define marriage anyway they want.
                            Last edited by Jaxb; 10-07-2016, 11:02 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
                              That is true. If there is no goal or purpose for marriage, then societies can define marriage anyway they want.
                              There are several purposes in marriage. One, of course, is obviously procreation, but social bonding and relationships, as between families, in the greater context of a society. Historically it is obvious that all heterosexual marriages did not have the purpose of procreation.

                              Actually societies do not always 'define' marriage with only one purpose. Marriages and long term relationships often just happen within societies without a specific definition.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-09-2016, 04:08 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X