Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[seer]

No it is not a non-starter, because killing and eating a cow is also wrong. Just like me killing and eating you is.

LOL! So is it wrong for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle? You are not making sense. And would be wrong for a German Shepherd to have sex with a woman if the Shepherd was obviously eager and willing? Why? Like I said, you have no rational argument, just emotional reaction.

[The Thinker]

LOL! So is it wrong for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle? You are not making sense. And would be wrong for a German Shepherd to have sex with a woman if the Shepherd was obviously eager and willing? Why? Like I said, you have no rational argument, just emotional reaction.

LOL. Wow more seer-level stupidity. This is why I love debating you.

The morality only applies to beings capable of being moral - which lions clearly aren't. That's why we don't put animals on criminal trial. This is a no brainer to anyone who isn't intellectually retarded by religion, as you clearly are.

[seer]

LOL. Wow more seer-level stupidity. This is why I love debating you.

The morality only applies to beings capable of being moral - which lions clearly aren't. That's why we don't put animals on criminal trial. This is a no brainer to anyone who isn't intellectually retarded by religion, as you clearly are.

That still in no way makes it immoral for us to kill and eat animals. You are just making stuff up. So again: would be wrong for a German Shepherd to have sex with a woman if the Shepherd was obviously eager and willing? Why?

In other words, if no harm comes to the animal, why is it wrong?

[The Thinker]

That still in no way makes it immoral for us to kill and eat animals. You are just making stuff up. So again: would be wrong for a German Shepherd to have sex with a woman if the Shepherd was obviously eager and willing? Why?

In other words, if no harm comes to the animal, why is it wrong?

Then you're saying it is ok for a 50 year old man to have have sex with a 11 year old girl who hit puberty. Right?

I'm not making anything up. I don't think bestiality is that bad, but I think it's bad since it opens up potential harm, just like drunk driving. It's possible to drink and drive and no one gets hurt. But it's still illegal because it has the tendency for people to get hurt. That's why pedophilia and bestiality is illegal. Children and animals are not mentally capable of consenting and because of that there is a tendency for abuse and harm to occur.

[seer]

I'm not making anything up. I don't think bestiality is that bad, but I think it's bad since it opens up potential harm, just like drunk driving. It's possible to drink and drive and no one gets hurt. But it's still illegal because it has the tendency for people to get hurt. That's why pedophilia and bestiality is illegal. Children and animals are not mentally capable of consenting and because of that there is a tendency for abuse and harm to occur.

But if you do it right, like with our German Shepherd, there is no harm. And anything that we do has the potential of harm, so that is not a good argument. So I guess if we could reduce the possibility of harm you would have no problem with bestiality - thanks...

[The Thinker]

But if you do it right, like with our German Shepherd, there is no harm. And anything that we do has the potential of harm, so that is not a good argument. So I guess if we could reduce the possibility of harm you would have no problem with bestiality - thanks...

That's not a good argument, because it would entail that "drunk driving is ok since everything does harm." But obviously that's not a legitimate argument because there are levels of harm. If there was zero harm involved, no I would not have a problem with bestiality. But since animals cannot communicate with us to tell us exactly how they feel, we'll never know for sure, and that's why there is always the potential for harm. The same principle applies to a young child or someone mentally disabled. Everything depends on harm, or potential harm when it otherwise can't be avoided. Without that general principle guiding your ethics claiming something is wrong makes little sense.

Teleology, can't be the principle. First, there is no teleology. Second, let's say my cell phone was designed for making calls and browsing the internet. But let's say I use it as a paper weight. It wasn't designed for that. But is it wrong? Is it wrong for me to use my phone as anything other than what it was designed for? If no, then the teleology argument is flawed, since you'd have to show why using things for what they weren't designed for is wrong. And so far you haven't.

[seer]

That's not a good argument, because it would entail that "drunk driving is ok since everything does harm." But obviously that's not a legitimate argument because there are levels of harm. If there was zero harm involved, no I would not have a problem with bestiality. But since animals cannot communicate with us to tell us exactly how they feel, we'll never know for sure, and that's why there is always the potential for harm. The same principle applies to a young child or someone mentally disabled. Everything depends on harm, or potential harm when it otherwise can't be avoided. Without that general principle guiding your ethics claiming something is wrong makes little sense.

Tell me Thinker, how would the obviously eager German Shepherd be harmed having sex with a woman? And again, we as a society would have no problem killing and eating the animal, so your subjective prohibitions are meaningless. But I'm glad you admit that in principle would have no problem with bestiality.

Teleology, can't be the principle. First, there is no teleology. Second, let's say my cell phone was designed for making calls and browsing the internet. But let's say I use it as a paper weight. It wasn't designed for that. But is it wrong? Is it wrong for me to use my phone as anything other than what it was designed for? If no, then the teleology argument is flawed, since you'd have to show why using things for what they weren't designed for is wrong. And so far you haven't.

Of course there can be a God designed or purpose for human sexuality, and second, if there isn't, then yes you can marry your favorite sheep... Feel free...

[The Thinker]

Tell me Thinker, how would the obviously eager German Shepherd be harmed having sex with a woman? And again, we as a society would have no problem killing and eating the animal, so your subjective prohibitions are meaningless. But I'm glad you admit that in principle would have no problem with bestiality.

The same way an obviously eager 4 or 9 yr old might be harmed later on.

And claiming what society has no problem with is irrelevant. The Nazis had no problem killing Jews, that didn't make it ok. That is a subjective prohibition. Society is wrong about killing and eating animals.

Of course there can be a God designed or purpose for human sexuality, and second, if there isn't, then yes you can marry your favorite sheep... Feel free...

There "can be" isn't the same as there is. And second you did nothing to refute my point. Even if we are designed, you still have to show it is wrong to use something other than what it was designed for. My cell phone wasn't designed to be used as a paper weight, but you'd have to show how it is wrong to use a cell phone as a paper weight since it wasn't designed to be one.

You haven't shown that at all. And no, not having teleology doesn't allow for marrying sheep. Creationist teleology has nothing to do with marriage.

[seer]

The same way an obviously eager 4 or 9 yr old might be harmed later on.

And claiming what society has no problem with is irrelevant. The Nazis had no problem killing Jews, that didn't make it ok. That is a subjective prohibition. Society is wrong about killing and eating animals.

But how would the Shepherd actually be harmed? A Child could be harmed psychologically, I doubt very much if an adult Shepherd would be psychologically effected, besides enjoyment. And I don't know too may 4 year olds that are sexually active like an adult dog - do you? And as far as killing and eat animals - that is merely your opinion, one not shared by the majority of humankind for the majority of history. It seems pretty clear that nature made us omnivorous.

There "can be" isn't the same as there is. And second you did nothing to refute my point. Even if we are designed, you still have to show it is wrong to use something other than what it was designed for. My cell phone wasn't designed to be used as a paper weight, but you'd have to show how it is wrong to use a cell phone as a paper weight since it wasn't designed to be one.

Well no, you suggested that there can not be a teleology, in principle, of course there can be. And it would be wrong because God deems it wrong, when you use your cell as a paper weight it is actually useless as a communication device. You are not using it as it was designed (but it was designed for that so there is a teleology). Yes, you could use your sexual ability to love your wife or rape your neighbor. One would follow our sexual design, one would not.

You haven't shown that at all. And no, not having teleology doesn't allow for marrying sheep. Creationist teleology has nothing to do with marriage.

But since there is no teleology for human sexuality in your word there would be no problem with bedding a sheep. Why? Because you have some vague notion of harm? Why does that opinion even enter the picture?

[Bill the Cat]

Society is wrong about killing and eating animals.

[The Thinker]

But how would the Shepherd actually be harmed? A Child could be harmed psychologically, I doubt very much if an adult Shepherd would be psychologically effected, besides enjoyment. And I don't know too may 4 year olds that are sexually active like an adult dog - do you? And as far as killing and eat animals - that is merely your opinion, one not shared by the majority of humankind for the majority of history. It seems pretty clear that nature made us omnivorous.

The Shepard could have mental pain afterwards. Same as a child. The child doesn't have to be sexually active in other to think it wants to have sex.

As far as killing and eating animals, argument ad populum is an informal logical fallacy. And nature also made us with the desire to be greedy and to rape, so according to you those things are therefore right.

But you never answered my question: you're saying it is ok for a 50 year old man to have have sex with a 11 year old girl who hit puberty. Right?

Well no, you suggested that there can not be a teleology, in principle, of course there can be. And it would be wrong because God deems it wrong, when you use your cell as a paper weight it is actually useless as a communication device. You are not using it as it was designed (but it was designed for that so there is a teleology). Yes, you could use your sexual ability to love your wife or rape your neighbor. One would follow our sexual design, one would not.

I didn't say there cannot be teleology in principle, just that there isn't. And are you actually saying it is wrong to use a cell phone as a paper weight? Do you advocate others stop doing this? What about using a book to even the legs of a wobbly table? Is that wrong too? Or using drinking alcohol to sterilize a wound? Is that wrong too since it wasn't designed for it? You need to show me a principle here that shows it's wrong, and even if you think god deems it wrong, what his principle is. Otherwise it's totally made up and arbitrary.

But since there is no teleology for human sexuality in your word there would be no problem with bedding a sheep. Why? Because you have some vague notion of harm? Why does that opinion even enter the picture?

You changed the subject to bedding a sheep from marrying one. You're as consistent as Hillary Clinton.

[seer]

The Shepard could have mental pain afterwards. Same as a child. The child doesn't have to be sexually active in other to think it wants to have sex.

Oh stop! The German Shepherd is going to have emotional problems? Get real Thinker, he is a dog... This is a pleasurable event for him, probably no different than when he has sex with his own species... You really are reaching.

As far as killing and eating animals, argument ad populum is an informal logical fallacy. And nature also made us with the desire to be greedy and to rape, so according to you those things are therefore right.

But why is your minority view correct? Why is it wrong to kill and eat animals to further my survival?

But you never answered my question: you're saying it is ok for a 50 year old man to have have sex with a 11 year old girl who hit puberty. Right?

Of course not, why would you even think that?

I didn't say there cannot be teleology in principle, just that there isn't. And are you actually saying it is wrong to use a cell phone as a paper weight? Do you advocate others stop doing this? What about using a book to even the legs of a wobbly table? Is that wrong too? Or using drinking alcohol to sterilize a wound? Is that wrong too since it wasn't designed for it? You need to show me a principle here that shows it's wrong, and even if you think god deems it wrong, what his principle is. Otherwise it's totally made up and arbitrary.

You said 'teleology, can't be the principle' well of course it can - for the Theist, but not for the Atheist. And there is a teleology for a cell phone, a designed purpose, even if you don't use it correctly. And it is not a moral question. But when you use your sexual ability to bed a horse or rape a woman it is a moral question.

You changed the subject to bedding a sheep from marrying one. You're as consistent as Hillary Clinton.

Well Thinker, one would hope that you would do the right thing and marry your sheep before you bed her!

[Carrikature]

Just asking as I surely don't know but: If we personify community and think about it in evolutionary and survival terms could we make an argument that the male/female/family dynamic that nature has provided in such an exclusive way regarding procreation highly suggests its' advantage for species continuation? That to deviate from that model and to not just allow but champion in society other unions is a move toward a weaker and less stable community? Is there evidence from the past that unbridled public expressions of all manner of sexual unions and acts results overtime in societal collapse?

Sorry for just asking a series of questions but again I don't know the answers. I find it an interesting line of thought and a possible philosophical argument that the OP is asking for.

Good questions, but I think you're missing the broader picture. Certainly our species, and many others, has utilized pairings that go beyond just procreation as a means to improve the continuation of the genetic line. However, it's far from the only successful method. Nor can we say that our method is therefore the best method simply because it's worked well. Further, there's no reason to think that limiting reproduction to certain breeding pairs which are supported by non-breeding adults might not be even more successful.

[Carrikature]

LOL! So is it wrong for a lion to kill and eat a gazelle? You are not making sense. And would be wrong for a German Shepherd to have sex with a woman if the Shepherd was obviously eager and willing? Why? Like I said, you have no rational argument, just emotional reaction.

The fundamental issue is that "obviously" doesn't apply to other animals any more than it does to children. You can't make this claim with any degree of surety, simply because their brain and/or level of knowledge is not on par with a human adult's.

Besides, ask yourself how many rapists have claimed their victims were "obviously eager and willing". It's not a useful metric. There's a reason the anti-rape movements focus on a clear, enthusiastic 'yes' as the definition of consent.

But if you do it right, like with our German Shepherd, there is no harm. And anything that we do has the potential of harm, so that is not a good argument. So I guess if we could reduce the possibility of harm you would have no problem with bestiality - thanks...

And how do you "do it right" with a creature that can't tell you what 'right' is?

[seer]

And how do you "do it right" with a creature that can't tell you what 'right' is?

Perhaps because like Obama, the German Shepherd, has an erection and actually mounts the woman. You are not twisting his paw. You know this stuff actually happens right?