4 ms·

I know a number of gay and gay-friendly people who disagree or oppose gay marriage laws to various degrees, for a variety of reasons. So, huh, of course yes I t

by Jare 9y ago

I know a number of gay and gay-friendly people who disagree or oppose gay marriage laws to various degrees, for a variety of reasons. So, huh, of course yes I think they can! Important: disagreeing with or opposing a gay marriage law is really not the same as being against inclusivity, diversity, or gays. Some people will have both traits; the problematic (for lack of a less polite word) one is the latter, not the former.

dwaltrip 9y ago
What is the reasoning your gay associates give for not supporting gay marriage rights?
- bobthechef 9y ago
  One may be natural law theory (and within that context, you have e.g. the perverted faculty argument, among others). Unfortunately, given the poor state of philosophical literacy, I don't imagine that convincing supporters of gay marriage without the requisite education. And even then, liberal doctrine has become increasingly averse to reason, preferring to elevate private desires to the status of ultimate authority.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    In evolutionary biology, there is no notion of correct or incorrect usage of a faculty. In fact, the opposite is the case. Evolution often occurs by modifying and reusing some functionality in a new way or in a new context. It has no specific goals or purposes. Things that survive and reproduce stick around and things that don't die off, no matter the details. The sexual organs don't have a pre-ordained purpose. The argument falls apart at the very first premise. If the actual concern is that all of humanity will turn gay and then we will go extinct, well, it's safe to say I'm not too worried about that.
    - SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
      Natural lawyers generally don't appeal to evolutionary biology to ground their moral claims, and would probably universally cry that to try and do so, would be folly. Note...I'm not endorsing NL here, I don't find it very convincing, but... The parent's point about philosophical literacy is apropos here. Natural law and its underlying metaphysics is very technical and deep. It is definitely not falling apart by pointing out the obvious, that biology varies over time. In some respect, NL has dealt with that "problem" since the time of Aristotle. (For a start: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/)
      - dwaltrip 9y ago
        > The parent's point about philosophical literacy is apropos here. Natural law and its underlying metaphysics is very technical and deep. This may be true, but such endeavors must reconcile with modern scientific understanding one way or another, or they can lose validity/usefulness. I haven't seen any convincing efforts to do so. Note, this would be less of an issue if they didn't make certain specific claims or rely on certain specific premises that the natural sciences directly touch. E.g. the "purpose" of sexual organs. One relevant idea that has been growing stronger for me is that a philosophical endeavor needs some sort of strong, tangible connection to reality in order to have meaning or usefulness. Without such grounding, it is far too easy to end up with something that seems reasonable on the surface but may actually be nonsensical or illusory.
- Jare 9y ago
  They of course supported gay rights! However some disagreed with the "marriage" word; some disagreed with the need for a law to allow it, rather than removing any existing law or clause that denied it. Those are the two arguments that stuck with me, there were others (different countries, different takes). It was definitely food for thought.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    > However some disagreed with the "marriage" word; some disagreed with the need for a law to allow it, rather than removing any existing law or clause that denied it. This is a minor technical point that distracts from the main discussion, and doesn't really support the implication from your earlier comment that some gay people are against gay marriage rights. Saying method 2 is better than method 1 is not the same as opposing method 1.
    - forgottenpass 9y ago
      Saying method 2 is better than method 1 is not the same as opposing method 1. What about outright opposing Method 1 because you don't think the Ends justify the Means? Even if you agree with the Ends? Even if you like Method 2? I'm my experience, that gets me branded as a monster. I tend to keep my mouth shut.
    - Jare 9y ago
      You, and I, consider it a minor technical point, but they do not. In some cases it is important enough for them to have not married despite over a decade of being together. Again, that should be food for thought. The implication does not exist unless you want to put it there. I even added a second, longer sentence to emphasize that being against a particular law is not the same as being against gay rights. The fact that you insist the implication is there despite all that is precisely my point.
- syshum 9y ago
  Some people oppose the very concept of Government regulating interpersonal relationship and want to see "legal marriage" abolsihed out right No adult should have to seek permission from government to form, codify, or have a relationship "recognized" At most you should be required to file civil contract declaring a partnership has been formed between 2 or more adults, what the terms of that partnership are from a financial and property stand point, and should include a disillusion process. That is a radical shift from what we have today, but "Family law" is a complete mess and needs to just be completely abolished and replaced with Voluntary Agreements and Civil Contracts outside the control of government.

by Jare 9y ago

dwaltrip 9y ago

What is the reasoning your gay associates give for not supporting gay marriage rights?

bobthechef 9y ago
One may be natural law theory (and within that context, you have e.g. the perverted faculty argument, among others). Unfortunately, given the poor state of philosophical literacy, I don't imagine that convincing supporters of gay marriage without the requisite education. And even then, liberal doctrine has become increasingly averse to reason, preferring to elevate private desires to the status of ultimate authority.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  In evolutionary biology, there is no notion of correct or incorrect usage of a faculty. In fact, the opposite is the case. Evolution often occurs by modifying and reusing some functionality in a new way or in a new context. It has no specific goals or purposes. Things that survive and reproduce stick around and things that don't die off, no matter the details. The sexual organs don't have a pre-ordained purpose. The argument falls apart at the very first premise. If the actual concern is that all of humanity will turn gay and then we will go extinct, well, it's safe to say I'm not too worried about that.
  - SmirkingRevenge 9y ago
    Natural lawyers generally don't appeal to evolutionary biology to ground their moral claims, and would probably universally cry that to try and do so, would be folly. Note...I'm not endorsing NL here, I don't find it very convincing, but... The parent's point about philosophical literacy is apropos here. Natural law and its underlying metaphysics is very technical and deep. It is definitely not falling apart by pointing out the obvious, that biology varies over time. In some respect, NL has dealt with that "problem" since the time of Aristotle. (For a start: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/)
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      > The parent's point about philosophical literacy is apropos here. Natural law and its underlying metaphysics is very technical and deep. This may be true, but such endeavors must reconcile with modern scientific understanding one way or another, or they can lose validity/usefulness. I haven't seen any convincing efforts to do so. Note, this would be less of an issue if they didn't make certain specific claims or rely on certain specific premises that the natural sciences directly touch. E.g. the "purpose" of sexual organs. One relevant idea that has been growing stronger for me is that a philosophical endeavor needs some sort of strong, tangible connection to reality in order to have meaning or usefulness. Without such grounding, it is far too easy to end up with something that seems reasonable on the surface but may actually be nonsensical or illusory.
Jare 9y ago
They of course supported gay rights! However some disagreed with the "marriage" word; some disagreed with the need for a law to allow it, rather than removing any existing law or clause that denied it. Those are the two arguments that stuck with me, there were others (different countries, different takes). It was definitely food for thought.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  > However some disagreed with the "marriage" word; some disagreed with the need for a law to allow it, rather than removing any existing law or clause that denied it. This is a minor technical point that distracts from the main discussion, and doesn't really support the implication from your earlier comment that some gay people are against gay marriage rights. Saying method 2 is better than method 1 is not the same as opposing method 1.
  - forgottenpass 9y ago
    Saying method 2 is better than method 1 is not the same as opposing method 1. What about outright opposing Method 1 because you don't think the Ends justify the Means? Even if you agree with the Ends? Even if you like Method 2? I'm my experience, that gets me branded as a monster. I tend to keep my mouth shut.
  - Jare 9y ago
    You, and I, consider it a minor technical point, but they do not. In some cases it is important enough for them to have not married despite over a decade of being together. Again, that should be food for thought. The implication does not exist unless you want to put it there. I even added a second, longer sentence to emphasize that being against a particular law is not the same as being against gay rights. The fact that you insist the implication is there despite all that is precisely my point.
syshum 9y ago
Some people oppose the very concept of Government regulating interpersonal relationship and want to see "legal marriage" abolsihed out right No adult should have to seek permission from government to form, codify, or have a relationship "recognized" At most you should be required to file civil contract declaring a partnership has been formed between 2 or more adults, what the terms of that partnership are from a financial and property stand point, and should include a disillusion process. That is a radical shift from what we have today, but "Family law" is a complete mess and needs to just be completely abolished and replaced with Voluntary Agreements and Civil Contracts outside the control of government.