It is a common objection by many today against opponents of
same sex marriage that such opposition lacks any grounding in anything beyond
one’s personal preference on the matter. Others may simply disregard such
opposition by pointing out that it is merely a religious belief held by those
who oppose it but not shared by them.
This article strives to make a non-religious case against gay marriage
using a common ground that many may agree with.
In order to build an argument against gay marriage that many
can accept, one must first base its foundations on a common ground that all may
agree with. For our argument, we will expect the reader to agree with the common
ground described by the following propositions:-
- Any action whose wide spread adoption can lead to or pose a danger to the extinction of the human race is against the common good
- Such an action must never be promoted
For the benefit of the reader, we will also present the
following example to help understand the above propositions.
Consider the usage of a chemical compound known as chlorofluorocarbon (or more commonly referred
to as CFC). The use of the compound was regulated and was called to be
eliminated since the 1990’s due to the harm it causes to the ozone layer. In
this scenario, we have the harmful act of “using CFC” being regulated since it
threatens the human race. No one should accept the argument that technological
progress could lead to the discovery of a way to remake the ozone layer and
therefore CFC usage should allowed to be continued unregulated. Neither should
one accept the argument that since a small percentage of persons using CFC
could cause negligible harm the act of using CFC should not be frowned upon. All would agree that CFC usage (act that
causes human extinction) should be discouraged rather than promoted.
Thus we hope that
the reader is convinced that the above two propositions of the position
presented as common ground are agreeable to all (or at least to many).
In the case of
allowing gay marriage, one implicitly (and even explicitly) detracts the stigma
associated with gay marriage and promotes homosexual activity. Homosexual
activity cannot lead to natural procreation. But if the human race does not procreate, then
it leads to human extinction. Therefore, here we have an act which if adopted
by the majority of the human race, will be detrimental to the common good.
Therefore, following the position we agreed upon at the beginning of this article,
we must conclude that homosexual activity must never be promoted or made to
look acceptable since it is against the common good. Allowing gay marriage and
providing benefits for such couples does promote such activity. Therefore, gay
marriage should not be allowed since it would be to promote an act that is
against the common good.
EDIT: I thought I should include a point form of the argument as well.
1) An act which adopted by all would lead to human extinction is contrary to the common good
2) It is incorrect to encourage/allow any such activity since to do so would be to encourage/allow one to act contrary to the common good
3) Homosexual activity, IF adopted by all or many would lead to problems regarding the propagation of the human species
4) Therefore, Homosexual activity should never be allowed or encouraged
5) Therefore, Same sex marriage should never be allowed since it promotes homosexual activity
EDIT: I thought I should include a point form of the argument as well.
1) An act which adopted by all would lead to human extinction is contrary to the common good
2) It is incorrect to encourage/allow any such activity since to do so would be to encourage/allow one to act contrary to the common good
3) Homosexual activity, IF adopted by all or many would lead to problems regarding the propagation of the human species
4) Therefore, Homosexual activity should never be allowed or encouraged
5) Therefore, Same sex marriage should never be allowed since it promotes homosexual activity
* * *
Being gay doesn't make you sterile. If the whole human race was GLBT, it would survive because people would still procreate in order to enjoy children and out of a sense of duty to the human race.
ReplyDeleteWell the decision that homosexual activity is against common good as argued in the post does not depend on sterility though.
DeleteIt merely hinges on the fact that if everyone or majority were to practice homosexuality, humanity will not procreate or have enough of a birth rate to prevent its extinction. In this sense, it would seem that homosexual activity must never be promoted or accepted in any society. Why? So that it may never become popular and be adopted by many.
As you said, humanity has to hinge on most people not adopting the homosexual life style and continuing to procreate. But if homosexuality is promoted, it might no longer be the case that majority will continue to do so. So from the point of view of decision making, it surely seems reasonable to discourage homosexual activity, yes?
So let me ask you this: are you in favor of all heterosexuals being forced to have children? After all, if everyone was straight and simply refused to have children, the human race would die. Therefore, it should be illegal to not have children, under your line of reasoning.
DeleteAlso, your whole argument hinges on the idea of gay sex as a consumer choice, something that with enough advertising could be widely sold among the masses. Sexuality doesn't work that way, and we've known that since the concept of sexual orientation was developed in the 19th century. It would be irrational to cause real people real harm through denying them marriage to avoid a hypothetical scenario that would never happen because it's based on misguided ideas.
But even granting you your ill-conceived hypothetical, a world of only gay people could still take time out from their gay relationships to procreate, either the old fashioned way (and just not enjoy it very much) or via artificial insemination. To even try to make your argument, you have to assume that a world of only gay people would have no interest at all in raising children or drive to keep the human race going. The fight for gay people to have the right to adopt should be enough to demonstrate the unreality of those assumptions.
You said:
Delete"So let me ask you this: are you in favor of all heterosexuals being forced to have children? After all, if everyone was straight and simply refused to have children, the human race would die. Therefore, it should be illegal to not have children, under your line of reasoning."
Reply:
I think you are perhaps confusing what you can do with what you cannot do. I cannot force someone to have children. But I can encourage people to have children as well as discourage any sort of activity that might promote not having children ex: contraceptives.
You said:
"Also, your whole argument hinges on the idea of gay sex as a consumer choice, something that with enough advertising could be widely sold among the masses. Sexuality doesn't work that way, and we've known that since the concept of sexual orientation was developed in the 19th century."
Reply:
I am not sure what exactly is known here. If you encourage a growing person to be homosexual, you can indeed create a person with homosexual tendencies. Our tendencies, whether it be sexual or non-sexual can grow in to full fledged behavior if encouraged. Sexual attraction, like any other tendency is simply something one can choose to or refuse to act on. I do not know of any research in the past century that says that one must always act on ones sexual preferences. Such a necessity does not exist.
You said:
"But even granting you your ill-conceived hypothetical, a world of only gay people could still take time out from their gay relationships to procreate, either the old fashioned way (and just not enjoy it very much) or via artificial insemination."
The point here is that promoting homosexual activity in itself is problematic. Whether they take the time to procreate while they are at it is really not the point. And honestly, what you are suggesting is like saying one gay couple should have their partners sleep with another gay couple. This seems pretty much like infidelity. Artificial insemination too is problematic because of the same reasons. You will have a different biological mother/father than the one you actually grow up with.
Now I can go in to detail here. But I think you are an intelligent person. So you should see how I can use the very argument that I made using the above position regarding common good to justify opposing marital infidelity, artificial insemination etc.
A world full of gay people will not be procreating because they prefer to have sex with their own sex. That simply does not create children. Yes? What you are asking is that we all abandon this intuitive view to adopt your position that in such a world, we put in place a system that gay people will be heterosexual with another for the sake of procreation. How exactly do you plan to achieve/guarantee something like that?
As far as discouraging homosexual activity, the government or state does not need to worry about such issues. Naturally, heterosexual activity leads to procreation and as long as homosexual activity is discouraged, they can be assured that it will continue. Therefore, it seems in the best interest of the state to discourage any homosexual activity.
Also, it seems to me like you want to cause/allow the following problem first:-
Delete1) A world where majority of gay people who prefer to have sex with their own sex.
2) The problem of lack of children because of this.
Then you want to propose solutions such as
1) Occasional heterosexual sex for the sake of procreation
2) Artificial insemination or some other technological substitute
So my question to you is why any government or state should be interested in first allowing or causing a problem when they can simply prevent it? i.e. discourage homosexual activity?
After all, your solutions themselves cause problems along other ethical lines and as to how one can even achieve such a situation where people will just be willing to have sex without attraction for the sake of procreation.
It seems to me that for one to adopt such a position defies all logic considering that it can be avoided by simply discouraging homosexual activity.
I said:
Delete"So let me ask you this: are you in favor of all heterosexuals being forced to have children? After all, if everyone was straight and simply refused to have children, the human race would die. Therefore, it should be illegal to not have children, under your line of reasoning."
Reply:
I think you are perhaps confusing what you can do with what you cannot do. I cannot force someone to have children. But I can encourage people to have children as well as discourage any sort of activity that might promote not having children ex: contraceptives.
Counter-Reply: So you can't take away the heterosexual right to decide whether to have children (even though they could cause human extinction) but you can deny gays the right to marry because that could cause human extinction? That's a double standard.
-----
I said:
"Also, your whole argument hinges on the idea of gay sex as a consumer choice, something that with enough advertising could be widely sold among the masses. Sexuality doesn't work that way, and we've known that since the concept of sexual orientation was developed in the 19th century."
Reply:
I am not sure what exactly is known here. If you encourage a growing person to be homosexual, you can indeed create a person with homosexual tendencies. Our tendencies, whether it be sexual or non-sexual can grow in to full fledged behavior if encouraged. Sexual attraction, like any other tendency is simply something one can choose to or refuse to act on. I do not know of any research in the past century that says that one must always act on ones sexual preferences. Such a necessity does not exist.
Counter-reply: By that logic, there shouldn't be any homeless gay teens, because no anti-gay family would ever create a gay child through encouragement. But the reality is that many an anti-gay family has produced a gay child, and then kicked that child out of the house.
You said: The point here is that promoting homosexual activity in itself is problematic. Whether they take the time to procreate while they are at it is really not the point.
DeleteReply: But according to you, the world is coming to an end if they don't procreate. The issue of whether gays procreate is clearly your point!
You said: And honestly, what you are suggesting is like saying one gay couple should have their partners sleep with another gay couple. This seems pretty much like infidelity.
Reply: Compared to the extinction of the human race, infidelity seems like a rather petty concern, does it not? According your basic principle (discourage whatever leads to human extinction), under this scenario, fidelity and monogamy should be discouraged because it would lead to human extinction.
You said: Artificial insemination too is problematic because of the same reasons. You will have a different biological mother/father than the one you actually grow up with.
Reply: That's also true in the case of adoption. Do you find that problematic as well? Do you complain when other Catholics suggest adoption as an alternative to abortion?
You said: So you should see how I can use the very argument that I made using the above position regarding common good to justify opposing marital infidelity, artificial insemination etc.
Reply: No, as I said under this all-gay scenario, the common good argues in favor of infidelity and artificial insemination, if the alternative is human extinction.
You said: A world full of gay people will not be procreating because they prefer to have sex with their own sex. That simply does not create children. Yes? What you are asking is that we all abandon this intuitive view to adopt your position that in such a world, we put in place a system that gay people will be heterosexual with another for the sake of procreation. How exactly do you plan to achieve/guarantee something like that?
Reply: It's more intuitive that many gay people, like many straight people, want to be parents, and find the same satisfaction in child-rearing that straight people do. Gay people are human beings, not lustful, selfish monsters incapable of caring about children or the future of humanity. The fact that your argument requires you to misrepresent gay people as such monsters should be a clue that it is both a wrong argument and an immoral one.
You said: So my question to you is why any government or state should be interested in first allowing or causing a problem when they can simply prevent it? i.e. discourage homosexual activity?
After all, your solutions themselves cause problems along other ethical lines and as to how one can even achieve such a situation where people will just be willing to have sex without attraction for the sake of procreation.
It seems to me that for one to adopt such a position defies all logic considering that it can be avoided by simply discouraging homosexual activity.
Reply: you're not allowed to propose an insane, impossible scenario, and then complain that I'm the one defying logic when I play along.
Please read my reply to the other person.
DeleteAlso, please understand that I am proposing an argument based on premises. Unless you have any premises you like to disagree with, the conclusion just follows.
The solution I propose or imply here does not cause any ethical problems. It just says that people, gay or straight, need to conform their actions according to the common good. Acting upon sexual impulses or tendencies is not a necessity and neither is it unethical to not act.
Anyway, please read the other replies I made to Scribblo as well. If you still think you have an actual objection, then we can discuss more.
One of the problems with your argument is that you haven't listed all the premises you're actually relying on. The key unstated premise is "allowing gay marriage would lead people who otherwise would be straight into becoming gay." If there is no causal link between gay marriage and a world where everyone is gay, your argument is invalid and we should not accept it.
DeleteAnother problem with your argument is that you are not applying the underlying logic consistently. When it comes to straight people, you are unwilling to deny them their right to not have children even if that would save the human race from extinction. This leads to the suspicion that you don't actually accept your own premises when they don't lead to your predetermined anti-gay conclusion. If you won't accept your own premises consistently, why should anyone else accept them at all?
Oh I think I understand your objection more correctly now. I think Scribblo (the other poster) has the same objection. I will reply to him concerning that.
DeleteBut let me address the second objection regarding inconsistency you bring up directly.
First, you cannot ask me what about this case and consider that an argument. That is a slippery slope fallacy. If we were discussing how to apply this logic for other issues, I am more than welcome to do that. As I said before, this thinking SHOULD apply for straight people as well with respect to any measures taken to promote contraception. Such promotion would be considered contrary to the common good.
The issue here is that you are just not willing to speak on the argument presented itself but want to say "Oh but what about for straight people, this other group of people, this other scenario after the whole world is gay etc". You cannot object to an argument this way unless you can say which premises you do not like. But in this case you have in your first objection so please read my post that I will make shortly to Scribblo.
Average Citizen is 100% right. The hypothetical all-gay society scenario is silly and far-fetched enough to begin with, even without all of the problems with the argument that they couldn't or wouldn't procreate anyway.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality is not contagious, and it's not a fad that people adopt because it's popular. It's not a choice, period. Therefore, discouraging it accomplishes nothing except making gays outcasts. We know what that looks like already, and it's not good. There are gay teens being bullied, disowned, and/or committing suicide every day because society "discourages" their "lifestyle". And if you like the sound of that because you think it furthers your agenda of preventing the world from turning gay... well, I wouldn't even know what to say to that.
It sounds to me like your so-called "secular" argument is simply a front for bigotry. When you are more concerned about a hypothetical dystopian fantasy land than the very real pain and hardship that comes with actually being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer here in the real world, it is hard for me to believe you have a heart or care about humanity at all.
Ok let me just keep it simple.
ReplyDeleteTo perform homosexual activity is a choice just as much as it is a choice to perform heterosexual activity, yes? So please stop saying that it is not a choice. I agree that to have homosexual tendencies or attractions may just be a result of ones society or genetics. BUT, that does not in anyway say that it is not a choice. That is an important distinction that I think many miss.
Now also, do you or do you not agree with the following premises in this argument?
1) An act which adopted by all would lead to human extinction is contrary to the common good
2) It is incorrect to encourage/allow any such activity since it is contrary to the common good
3) Homosexual activity, IF adopted by all or many would lead to problems regarding the propagation of the human species
If you really have nothing against the above premises, whether you like it or not, the conclusion follows that
4) Homosexual activity should never be allowed or encouraged
5) Same sex marriage should never be allowed since it promotes homosexual activity
So I am just telling you what is reasonable. You are arguing with me and appealing to sentimentality. I agree that being gay is tough. So is being a person who is prone to anger. Just like in the case of a person suffering with anger issues, the answer for gay people is to try and stop acting on their impulses. Society should help them with that rather than encourage them to continue.
You make it sound like if the person just cannot act on their feelings or tendencies, they have to commit suicide. That is never the case and honestly tells a bit about the mentality of our culture that thinks we must act on all our impulses. Bottom line here is that some impulses should not be acted upon or encouraged to be acted upon since the acts are contrary to the common good.
This is not bigotry. This is just the inevitable conclusion. If I didn't have a heart for humanity, I honestly wouldn't care whatever it did. I am obviously writing these things because I care.
Word about the following:-
ReplyDeleteYou said: "No, as I said under this all-gay scenario, the common good argues in favor of infidelity and artificial insemination, if the alternative is human extinction."
Reply: You are missing the point here. You have created a problem that is leading to human extinction. I would think people would rather not go to that point and do everything to avoid it in the first place.
You can't tell me that my view that "killing an innocent human being is wrong" because during time of war, there are innocent casualties. Why? Because I would rather avoid the war in the first place rather than end up in such an extreme situation which in itself is contrary to the common good.
Ask yourself the following. In order to satisfy the impulses/tendencies of a very small group of people in society (or lets say a large group of people), you have decided to put the human race at stake. How can that be reasonable?
But I DO have a problem with your premises. Premise 3 includes another unstated premise: "Homosexuality is likely to be adopted by all." IT'S NOT! Therefore, your conclusion is false.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with this argument:
1) An act which adopted by all would lead to human extinction is contrary to the common good
2) It is incorrect to encourage/allow any such activity since it is contrary to the common good
3) The profession of garbageman, IF adopted by all or many would lead to problems regarding the survival of the human species (there would be no one to grow food or build houses, etc. and everyone would starve).
4) Garbage collection should never be allowed or encouraged.
5) The profession of garbageman should never be allowed since it promotes garbage collection.
Do you get the point?
Another thing: comparing homosexual "impulses" to anger impulses demonstrates that you have no understanding of homosexuality whatsoever. Anger is an impulse that every person on the planet feels at one point or another, and it is impermanent. You feel it, hopefully express it in a healthy, non-violent way (NOT the same thing as repressing it), and it goes away. Homosexuality is not an impulse. It's an orientation. It is a major part of who someone is. It determines who they love. It doesn't go away whether it is expressed or repressed (note: I'm not talking about lust, which is something completely different).
You are acting like it's perfectly reasonable to give gay people the following choice: either 1.) pretend to be straight and spend your life in a relationship with someone you are not in love with, or 2.) spend your life alone and celibate. What, you can't understand why some children and adults, faced with that choice (not to mention told they are evil sinners, mentally ill, an abomination unto God, no longer welcome in their family, etc.) might decide to commit suicide?
Hi there,
DeleteFirst I must state that both of you have presented excellent points which I think I should address as a post discussing objections to the argument I presented. Thank you for taking the time to think about it and give such feedback!
To address your objections I think both of you seem to have the problem with the premise
1) An act which adopted by all would lead to human extinction is contrary to the common good
First thing to realize is that I am not speaking of the actuality that if gay marriage is promoted, all will accept gay marriage. Rather, the point is that if all were to adopt homosexual activity, it would be contrary to the common good since it causes problems for the human race / function of society etc.
So to explain the intuitive idea behind this, use of pirated software for an example is against the common good (although one person using it might not do any significant harm) because if everyone were to do that, the makers will not be compensated.
Now in order to object to this premise, you presented the case of the garbage collector which if we base on the same premise alone, leads to the conclusion that there should be no garbage collectors.
The issue I see here is that you used the premise in a situation where something is already a necessity for the common good. To explain, the garbage collector is a requirement for the common good of society (which I think you agree). Thus, it has to be allowed for the very reason of maintaining the common good. In the case of homosexual activity/ pirating music etc, we are not speaking of acts that are necessary for the common good. We are talking about acts that we are trying to determine whether they should be accepted or not. Do you see this important distinction?
My argument obviously does not apply (or is not even required) for activity that is already known to be a necessity for common good.
That being said, it is worth pointing out that a state (unless communist) does promote other useful professions by offering a higher pay over a profession such as garbage collector. When was the last time the state aired an advertisement about joining the garbage collector team? In this way, the state does regulate/control the number of garbage collectors.
I hope this clarifies things.
*************************************************
Now about your second point regarding impulse vs. orientation. If a person is prone to anger, that is very much part of their character as well. The underlying point here that you seem to miss is that these things we call "orientation", "tendencies", "disposition" are all things one can always choose to act on or reject. The choice to act on it depends on whether it is consistent with the common good. If not, one must not act on it.
And yes, I do think the choices are fine. Is it tough? YES! But that does not mean you can do something contrary to the common good. Society should help them cope with the loneliness. Closer family ties will help. Families should understand that the person will have to go through a tough time now and help them out. It will also certainly help if society didn't make it seem like "if you cannot fulfill your sexual urge, you might as well lay down and die" mentality.
The whole point of becoming an adult is that sometimes you have to stop acting on ones dispositions/orientations/tendencies because those actions are contrary to the common good. Is that easy? NO! Should one commit suicide because its tough? NO! Society should be structured such that it helps people cope and promote other legitimate ways to deal with their problems. This goes for all issues, not just homosexuality.
Let's see how this same logic would play out if it were applied to post-menopausal women.
ReplyDelete1) An act, which if adopted by all, would lead to human extinction, is contrary to the common good.
2) It is incorrect to encourage/allow any such activity since to do so would be to encourage/allow one to act contrary to the common good.
3) Sexual activity with a post-menopausal woman, IF adopted by all or many would lead to problems regarding the propagation of the human species.
4) Therefore, sexual activity by post-menopausal women should never be allowed or encouraged.
5) Therefore, marriage by post-menopausal women should never be allowed since it promotes sexual activity by post menopausal women.
Good point. The main issue with this line of argument is that you assume the conclusion is invalid. It is perhaps worth pointing out that usually all cultures that date more than a 100 years hold the view that, not just having sex, but marrying a post menopausal woman is indeed something to be frowned upon.
DeleteSo I would say the conclusion is indeed desirable. It is perhaps the level to which the modern Western Culture (or lack thereof) has fallen that makes us think of post menopausal women marrying as a good thing.