The attempt to redefine marriage as between any two or perhaps more persons devalues the importance of the categories of male and female and proposes that all intimate loving relationships are the same. This is self-evidently false. Marriage is a human right, but it is reserved for heterosexual relationships since it is through the very nature of such relationships that families can be formed. The applicability of human rights to all human beings can be accepted.
Human rights apply to all human beings regardless of sexual orientation. It also means that human rights don't apply in a special, altered way to particular groups. Hence, if marriage is between a man and a woman, and all adult human persons can enter into marriage, those who want homosexual unions to be recognised as marriage are arguing that this human right has to apply to them in an altered form.
It is not then the same human right. The assumption states that the same human rights apply to all human beings, not selectively altered to suit special groups. In terms of the truth of [5] , it follows that if [3] and [4] are true then so will [5]. As I've already indicated, [3] has applicability only a certain sense, and hence [5] will only be true in a limited way, since [3] is limited.
It then follows that [7] is false, which means [8] is also false. The conclusion that we reach is that the argument for claiming that prima facie gay unions are being discriminated against by being denied the same status as heterosexual unions fails, since the premises on which the argument is based on are false.
The argument for marriage equality can only work if it is accepted that gay unions are of the same species or kind as heterosexual unions and hence it is discriminatory to reserve marriage exclusively to heterosexual unions. From a metaphysical point of view, this requires us to understand what enables something to be considered of the same species. It is clear that this involves having the same kinds of essential characteristics.
A homosexual union is of a different species to a heterosexual union, since it necessarily involves a union of a same-sex couple, while a heterosexual union involves the union of a male and female couple. As we have already argued, a heterosexual union is of the kind which is normally open to the advent of children through the procreative act, in order to form a family. The institution of marriage is established to support the family in its raising of children, who are the future of the community.
This is not simply a quirk of definition, but names an essential feature of the community and of the state. Changing a definition does not change this fundamental reality, but has the potential to be destructive of the basis for society, since it fails to respect the natural order of life and its propagation.
It fails to appreciate the importance of the roles of father and mother in the nurturing of children, proposing that there is nothing noteworthy about the nuclear family that is worth protecting and preserving. If the nuclear family is a human good worth protecting, it is the responsibility of all members of society to do so, including homosexual members of the community. An extension of this is upholding the institution of marriage as between and man and a woman.
This does not imply repudiating their own committed unions, nor where the exigencies of life require it, raising children. A homosexual union is not of the same species as a heterosexual union. There is no fudging this point. It follows that such unions are not the same as marriage and the question of equal treatment does not arise. It follows that there is no injustice in rejecting the proposed re-definition of marriage.
It might be added that neither are de facto relationships between male and female equal to marriage either, but there is no injustice in denying that such relationships are the same as marriage, even if they have a great deal in common with those who are married. Likewise, there is no injustice in recognising that a homosexual union can be a committed one in much the same way as a heterosexual one without proposing that there is injustice in treating one relationship as different from the other.
The assertion of equal recognition of homosexual unions and marriage between a man and a woman assumes that the relationships are the same. If they were, then clearly there would be no reason to discriminate between unions, but as argued, they are not, so the demand for equal recognition - of gay unions as equivalent to marriage - is not based on sound argument. The legal arguments are rooted in public policy considerations.
The public responses decidedly were not. From his survey results, published recently in the sociological journal Social Currents , here's one response that reflected the majority of opposition to same-sex marriage: "Because I don't believe God intended them to be that way.
Powell acknowledges there is nothing wrong with showing moral disapproval. People have a right to their beliefs and values. But, if public opinion — either through pressure on lawmakers or directly at the ballot box — drives public policy, Powell's research suggests that the real motivation for banning same-sex marriage is moral disapproval over homosexuality.
And that, he says, could present a particular challenge for supporters of traditional marriage: Moral disapproval doesn't make a valid legal case. In fact, same-sex marriage proponents argue that would be unconstitutional. That's why the longstanding courtroom debate over same-sex marriage has begun to address a particular legal term: "animus. Animus is the notion that a law has no compelling public interest and is driven merely by a moral disapproval so strong that it causes harm to a group that's viewed as inferior.
People also have to travel to weddings, often over long distances. This requires vehicles, the vast majority of which give off CO 2. This situation is even worse if you include destination weddings , where the happy couple and guests fly to other countries to tie the knot, and flying gives off even more CO 2.
Increasing the number of weddings will no doubt lead to more of this, and thus increasing the threat and potential damage of climate change. Overall, opponents of same-sex marriage could make an effective and logical case against marriage simply by highlighting the dangers of climate change. None of them seem to be doing this though. However, given that legalising same-sex marriage overturns the laws of nature, this means the laws of nature preventing same sex couples from reproducing are now null and void, so maybe same sex couples can reproduce.
Another argument is the slippery slope argument , which says that legalising same sex marriage will inevitably lead to people entering polygamous marriages, entering into incestuous marriages, or even marrying animals like dogs and cats. What if this happens? What if people enter into legal marriages with animals?
I have been told my natural urges are a choice. I have been told I do not deserve equal rights. I have even been told I am going to hell. I do not believe all opponents of gay marriage are hateful. Some have just not been exposed to the right arguments, and so I will demonstrate here that each anti-gay marriage argument ultimately serves to oppress or imply the lesser status of the minority of which I am a part.
In rallying against the introduction of equal marriage, religious campaigners have frequently stressed that their objections are not driven by homophobia, and have deployed numerous arguments to demonstrate this. To the untrained ear these arguments sound like they may have grounding in reason, but on closer inspection reveal themselves as homophobic.
To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.
The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters.
The assertion is obviously false. This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development.
The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay.
It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity. Another form of the previous argument. Not so confusing really. May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children?
0コメント