Monday, January 4, 2016

Why civil unions are not "wrong"



I am adding something like a "Foreword"  to this post for personal reasons and because after reading what follows here, I found myself unable to argue against the logic and reasoning involved.  I've done enough ranting about why I disapprove of any display of "gayness"  regardless of the gender combinations involved.  I considered it ONLY RIGHT to provide everyone opposite positional writings as I become aware of it.
I must also add that I DO NOT KNOW who authored this composition or how I came into possession of it.  It was found in my collection of personal writing files. I do not know what copyright laws I may be guilty of violating by doing what I'm doing, so if this is your property, and you do not want me to use it this way, please contact me and reveal what I can and must to do to stay within the boundaries of the laws of the land and I will do it.
To whomever it may apply ... In my opinion, this is one very great literary creation and you are deserving of the appropriate recognition. Kudos and Great job!
_______________________________________________________________________

 Why civil unions are not "wrong"  

I) Religious arguments:

A)     One can believe in God and not be Christian or Jewish.

B)     One can also be Christian and not believe homosexuality is wrong. The simplest way is to just believe the bible is 100% the work of men and not God, while still believing in Christ as the savior.

C)     For even the most literal minded bible readers - King James does not use the word "homosexual". It may just refer to a specific male-male sex act. There is no way to argue the point with 100% certainty.

D)    There are any number of individual Christian positions between B and C, that do not see homosexuality as wrong.

E)     All religious arguments are faith-based, and while every  individual should have the right to live their own life based on their faith, we should not make secular laws based on religious faith. Biblical arguments can be interesting, and are relevant to religious marriages, but not to secular ones.

II) Scientific arguments:

A)     Almost all agree the homosexuality is a condition that exists by early childhood. It may be somewhat genetic, pre-natal, or early childhood based, or some combination of all of the above.

B)     In some disputed number of cases, choice may be a factor.       

C) While interesting and important to know, how the condition happened, it is mostly irrelevant to law-making. Although it can add one additional discrimination argument.

III) Discrimination arguments.

A)     The first of course is that it may be discrimination based on genetics.

B)     Even if it is not genetic, and happens later, it can be compared to discrimination against disabled people.

C)     It is discrimination based on gender. i.e. He can marry her, but she can't marry her.

D)    It is discrimination based on religion, since some religions marry gay people, the state is recognizing marriages performed by some religions and not others. If you say that secular marriage is totally separate from religious marriage, that's fine, then see point (I).

E) While these are potential reasons to allow gay marriages, they are not the best reason.

IV) Nature, and moral arguments from natural law.

A)     Natural law is a concept that comes from the Greeks, and Romans, and was integrated with Christian thought, by Thomas Aquinas.

B)     In summary it argues: God makes eternal law, and natural law is part of this. That is all things act in agreement with their nature. Since man is a rational creature, the correct action for man is to act in agreement with reason.

C)     Thomas Aquinas points out that things that are against nature, like wearing clothes are not wrong, because they are not against reason.

D)    He says Christian "sins against nature" are a special class of things that are both against reason, and against nature.
The important point to note is that being against nature does not make something wrong, only being against reason makes something wrong for a human. The church has seriously blurred this original idea. They now claim that things like homosexuality are wrong under natural law, only on the basis, of being against nature. While the original claim was that things that were against reason were wrong.

E)     In the end it is a faith based argument. It depends on believe in God, although not on a specific religion. As it is faith based, it should not be used to make secular laws. Although, since it advocates reason, it is only at odds with secular morality on the issue of "sins against nature", and then only because it has been interpreted that way.

F)     The argument that unnatural is wrong without reference to a God, is clearly fallacious, since a great deal of unnatural activities which humans engage in are not deemed wrong at all. (A trivial example: walking on my hands, rather than my feet, is unnatural, but not immoral.) Without reference to a "plan" or a "design", there is no basis to connect unnatural activity to wrong activity, either. And as stated above even with
reference to a plan, the plan may be for us to use reason to determine right and wrong in all cases.

V) Moral arguments - subjective morality

A)     Purely subjective morality allows each individual to determine what is right and wrong himself.

B)     using this system, we could all have different ideas about homosexuality being right or wrong, and we could all be correct.

C) For obvious reasons, you can not run a society this way, and this concept should be rejected for secular law making.

VI) Objective secular morality.

A)     Secular morality is only subjective where 2 things that are wrong, are weighted against each other. If action or inaction would both cause something to happen that is in and of itself bad, then the choice between the 2 can be shown in the end to be a subjective weighting of how bad each
result is.
B)     For example:
Should you kill 1 innocent person to save 2?
How about killing 1 to save 1000?
How about killing 1 to save the rest of humanity?
How about killing 1 to save 1 and a dog?
The answers are different shades of grey because the bad choices have been weighted against each other. Both the value of human life, and the right to
individual self determination are involved in the weighting.

C)     In all other cases this form of morality can give black/white, yes/no, right/wrong answers. This is the morality we should and generally do base
laws on.

D)    In all cases the definition of morality is harm. Harm to society, harm to other individuals, or harm to self. It includes intended harm, and
potential harm. Harm is physical, material, deceptive, or coercive, as well as some closely related concepts.

E)     Examples of some things that are clearly wrong:
Murder, stealing, rape, etc.

F)     Things like promiscuity are actually mostly grey. (Although occasionally black, or white) There are complex and complicated issues here. To
explain why it is grey and not black is controversial, and would be a long discourse away from the point, so let's leave that out, and assume we want
to try for moral purity, that is things that are unquestionably "white" or "right" by secular standards.

G)    Non- consensual sex is wrong, because coercion is wrong. We deem minors unable to give consent, so sex with minors is wrong. ???

H)    Promiscuous sex can cause emotional harm, and transmit disease, and sometimes produce unwanted children, therefore it is wrong.

I)      Sex with animals is wrong for the reasons above, plus other potential harm that could result from it. ???

J)      Incest is wrong, besides most likely being promiscuous, it risks deformed children being born.

K)    None of the above have anything to do with homosexuality. They are just examples of the principle harm = wrong.

J) To be unquestionably morally pure, one should choose a single sexual partner for life. The gender of this person is not morally relevant, since neither choice causes harm.

VII) Arguments about reproduction

A)     There are more than enough people that would choose an opposite sex partner to insure the future of humanity, so this is not relevant.

B)     Bringing another child into a crowded world rather than adopting one out of third world poverty, is a questionable moral choice anyway, if we are looking to be 100% "white" or morally pure.

C)     Gay people can have children artificially.

D)    Sterile straight couples are allowed to marry.

E) In short there is no legitimate reason to discriminate just because they are non-reproductive.

VIII) Parenting

A)     There is no evidence that 2 lesbian or gay parents are any worse for a child than 2 straight parents.

B)     On average, they may even be better parents, since every child is wanted.

C)     Even assuming you disagree with the above, there are certainly many adoptable children here and in other parts
of the world that world that would be far better off in a 2 parent home. Even Dr. Laura concedes this!

D)    Therefore there is no reason to deny marital rights based on      
ability to parent.

IX) Why marry anyone? What society gains.

A)     Stable environments for raising children

B)     Monogamy limits the spread of some harmful diseases

C)     It encourages stability. People can devote their energy to other productive things, other than mating.

D) All of the above apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

X) Why would someone want the right to marry, (or form civil unions)?

A)     People that have made the choice to stay together for life need next-of-kin rights, as they have become as important to each other as other family.

B)     There are over 1000 federal laws, and hundreds of state laws that apply to these unions.

C)     Here is a sample:

Assumption of Spouse's Pension, Automatic Inheritance, Automatic Housing Lease Transfer, Bereavement Leave,
Burial Determination, Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits, Divorce Protections, Domestic Violence Protection,
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death, Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse, Insurance Breaks,
Joint Bankruptcy, Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner, Certain Property Rights, Reduced Rate Memberships,
Sick Leave to Care for Partner, Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison, Wrongful Death(Loss of Consort) Benefit

XI) Conclusion - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

A)     Yes, a creator, but not necessarily your version or mine, or anyone else's. (See point I and IV)

B)     This is a statement of a belief that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals except in cases where the rights of one individual infringe on the rights of others.

C)     All of us, including lesbians and gays have an absolute unalienable moral right to pursue happiness, and to choose a person we love to remain with for life.

D)    Our society which stands in part for the rights of individuals to determine their own destiny, as affirmed in the declaration of independence, should affirm and promote this moral truth through the law.

E) It is the right thing to do.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Got an opinion? Share it. I love feedback. How else can I improve?