Today, I was walking past a LGBT demonstration for marriage rights, and it sparked an internal discussion with myself. For the life of me, I cannot think why someone who chooses to live fully by that lifestyle should be subjected to any persecution for what by some is deemed as immoral.
The only two reasons I can possibly see for immorality are theological and the argument that uses the line that because it is impossible for a procreation in many relationships, it is immoral. Both are flimsy, the first mostly due to the inconclusive a priori reasoning, and the second because of what we shall call real-world implications and a lack of τέλοϛ in our world.
For the life of me, I cannot see one well reasoned way that says that those of LGBT persuasion should not be allowed provision in law because of immorality. I pose to you the question - is this unreasonable, or am I missing something?
I agree that it is unreasonable to denounce another person's relationship because it is different than what is seen as typical love between a man and a woman. Why should they be told that they are not equal to us, especially by the government? I can understand if a church would refuse to perform the ceremony, but to deem it illegal in a institution where citizens are supposed to be treated equally is unbelievable. I'm sorry, but I honestly haven't heard of one logical argument against gay marriage; especially because marriage symbolizes the bond between two PEOPLE, it does not represent the fertility or reproductive capability of two individuals, specifically a man and a woman.
Today, I was walking past a LGBT demonstration for marriage rights, and it sparked an internal discussion with myself. For the life of me, I cannot think why someone who chooses to live fully by that lifestyle should be subjected to any persecution for what by some is deemed as immoral.
The only two reasons I can possibly see for immorality are theological and the argument that uses the line that because it is impossible for a procreation in many relationships, it is immoral. Both are flimsy, the first mostly due to the inconclusive a priori reasoning, and the second because of what we shall call real-world implications and a lack of τέλοϛ in our world.
For the life of me, I cannot see one well reasoned way that says that those of LGBT persuasion should not be allowed provision in law because of immorality. I pose to you the question - is this unreasonable, or am I missing something?
The problems with this argument is that you are arguing against the necessity for regulation of morality and safety, the basis of the entire legal system. Ostensibly being a pedophile or a murderer are by all accounts immoral and we regulate them as such based upon the majority sentiment that these behaviors are immoral and detrimental to society as a whole. Ostensibly the inability to use morality in legal regulation theoretically renders the rule of law moot.
Other things we regulate based on morality that, technically speaking, have no biological reason for preventing that in a purely amoral state of Darwinism would not be regulated; incest, rape, murder, theft, pedophilia, bestiality, graft, embezzlement, rule of law, and so on.
Personally I'm in favor of Gay marriage but not because we "can't regulate morality" but because regulating this particular act is a waste of time and money.
While clearly moral concerns do play a part in law-making, I would contend that to whatever extent possible, morality and legality should be as separate as church and state. I would contend that the proper reason we make laws against things like rape, murder and theft is that they cause significant harm of a particular type to other people we are in society with, and not a matter of how they are viewed morally. While totally immoral, lying (except in the case of perjury and legal contracts) should not be a matter of legality, and I don't want to see police resources being spent doing surveillance on unfaithful spouses. As soon as morality comes into things, these sorts of things are open for discussion, and you get stupid laws barring interracial marriages, against sodomy (like those good Christian kids protecting their virginities by doing it in the butt), or selling ice cream on Sunday.
Gay marriage etc. does not deal with genuine morality however. It is, at its core an underlying arbitrary assertion that has been instigated by certain religions who have covered it with the veil of morality.
This however, is based solely on my own definition of morality which, in very short summary only concern actions and reactions which affect your own and other's well being. Gay marriage makes absolutely no difference to me, so to arbitrarily prohibit it as an act of law seems utterly absurd.
You're going to have to put some meat on that "genuine morality" statement, I'm afraid. Morality itself is a pretty loaded term, one person's moral behaviour is another's hedonism or puritanism.
I am not disturbed by homosexuals in any way. It makes me equally uncomfortable seeing two gay men make out in public as a man and a woman doing the same. I don't see the harm in them doing what they do, I mean it doesn't hurt me or society. But lesbians are a slight bummer because I not only am I having to compete against guys, I now have to compete against girls. I mean, gay men take away competition but lesbians do the opposite.
First of all, is this related to the mortality of their choices or your own personal feelings of discomfort toward those of a different lifestyle persuasion?
Where's your grounding in that statement? Are you putting forward an argument for objectivism or absolutism? And if so, how does this relate to our discussion.
Which is in and of itself a moral distinction based upon a graded scale of what you view to be moral "telling the truth" versus what you view to be immoral "lying." It is perhaps a secular morality but it still is a code of ethics by which you believe we should be based.
Unfortunately for you, you are not the ultimate arbitrator in what is "moral" or immoral.
The entire point of representative democracy is to reflect the perceived morality of its peoples and the sad truth is that it seems that of the voting population most of them are either against gay marriage or apathetic to the issue.
I realise that, which is why I tried to briefly state how I framed morality for myself ~ ultimately a subjective appeal. I know my basis of morality is not representative of a whole lot of people.
I would say a non-relativistic subjectivism, something akin to William James' pragmatism. Moral claims as a species are far too esoteric and philosophically slippery to base legal systems on, while an appeal to a commonly held harm principle can get us much better results for the long term. As mentioned before, morality gives us laws that look foolish from the perspective of history; prohibition, not allowing the sale of ice cream on Sunday, and any number of "blue" laws attempting to prohibit particular sexual practices.
Has anyone ever looked at a murder statute and said, "What a silly thing to make a law against"? Of course not, because there is a rational basis for making such a law that is not tied to an arbitrary set of moralistic dogmas. Harm is harm, and it is relatively easy to identify, making it a much better basis for law-making. Everyone can agree that "Thou shall not kill" is more than a religious trope, there is something fundamental to the running of a human society wrapped up in that commandment, while "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is of a totally different kind, tied entirely to a person's belief or disbelief in a particular religious outlook.
You are right, morality is not inherently tied to religion, that's part of the problem, it's not inherently tied to anything but the current popular preferences of a particular, power-holding portion of the population. (Don't read that last sentence out loud, you'll soak your computer screen) Laws (human laws, that is) are by nature secular, they are our way of expressing the basic standards that the government requires from all its citizens, and the inclusion of the highly changeable nature of morality tends to skew any legal system from its intended purpose. What a legal system is supposed to do is provide the framework within which society functions best, and the bedrooms and dining rooms are not directly connected to that society.
What people choose to do in their bedrooms or eat and drink in their dining rooms is nobody's business but their own, laws should not be passed to regulate them. If you want to bang dudes or chicks or two dudes and a chick or three chicks and a midget, that's up to nobody but you and the dudes, chicks or midgets you choose to bang. The Church Lady across the street is entitled to no say whatsoever about who you take to your bed, any more than you are to dictate her sleeping arrangements.
As for the notion that representational democracies are meant to reflect the perceived morality of its people, I have to disagree, morality is not something government ought to stick its nose into. Moral standards are a matter for the court of public opinion, punishable by ostracization, shunning, that sort of thing, not in the courts of law, to be punished by prisons. Legal systems ought not to be based on such subjective and ephemeral matters as what behaviours are viewed with current popular disapproval.
If we don't base standards of legality off of judgements of relative value then what on earth are we supposed to make such judgements based upon? Your entire argument that the government needs to be morally non-regulatory is a moral judgment in and of itself based upon your own perceptions of perceived value. Laws, even secular laws, are moral judgments of expectation separated between those who obey the law, moral, and those who break it, immoral. A system of laws is, by definition a moral code, which implicitly implies an expectation of "standard behavior."
Simply by virtue of having the need to create laws government must have a standard of morality.
Not at all, it is a pragmatic argument, not a moralistic one. Morality-based laws tend not to work well in the long run, due to the changing nature of morals. Think about all the work that has to go into changing laws to reflect changes in moral attitudes, all the wasted time and effort that could be put to so much better use. Calling laws regulating the sale of cabbage "moral" sounds very strange indeed, as if there was something inherently immoral about allowing your produce to be outside a refrigerated container for more than an hour. Such laws are written on the basis of prudential concerns, not moral ones, and as such they stand up over the test of time while laws about keeping people from performing particular acts among consenting adults become antiquated and ridiculous within a generation or two.
If your objective is a smoothly running society where individual rights are respected and protected, pragmatic/prudential concerns are the only ones that should matter to the law-making process, and the morality of the day ought to be left to the realm of shame-based punishments from society in general.
"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
just saying that ones' morals can be directly attributed to the influences they have in their childhood and adolescent years. Saying homosexuality is immoral is just as much as a prejudice as saying a white man is better than a black man. And where do these prejudices come from? Most likely their parents, of course there's always been cases of outside influences.
we ARE talking about homosexuality AND immorality.
I'm merely explaining how people come to know these things as immorality... by the way... saying 'what does that add to the discussion' in no way adds to the discussion on your behalf.
Not at all, it is a pragmatic argument, not a moralistic one. Morality-based laws tend not to work well in the long run, due to the changing nature of morals. Think about all the work that has to go into changing laws to reflect changes in moral attitudes, all the wasted time and effort that could be put to so much better use. Calling laws regulating the sale of cabbage "moral" sounds very strange indeed, as if there was something inherently immoral about allowing your produce to be outside a refrigerated container for more than an hour. Such laws are written on the basis of prudential concerns, not moral ones, and as such they stand up over the test of time while laws about keeping people from performing particular acts among consenting adults become antiquated and ridiculous within a generation or two.
Determining what constitutes acceptable sanitation and how to deal with prudential concerns is a moral decision, even if it is a secularly moral decision. Why? Because it is a value judgement. I don't really give a shit about my cabbage but laws based around verifying the quality of meat were put in place for "prudential reasons" (oh god oh god there's rat feces in my meat) but ultimately the decision to protect meat quality is also one of right and wrong, namely that it's wrong to sell tainted meat. I doubt you'd hesitate to say that selling tainted food was immoral, simply by virtue that we presume allowing harm to come to others is wrong.
If your objective is a smoothly running society where individual rights are respected and protected, pragmatic/prudential concerns are the only ones that should matter to the law-making process, and the morality of the day ought to be left to the realm of shame-based punishments from society in general.
Except that deciding what constitutes either individual rights or "pragmatic concerns" is going to be a value judgement based upon the legislator's own perspectives of right and wrong. You don't get to keep "right and wrong" out of the picture when you make laws.
"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
"My bedroom's large enough for everyone." Hugh Hefner
The key distinction that needs to be taken into account here is the one between "morals" and "values"; the two terms are not equivalent, things can have non-moral value. A 5-dollar bill has value, but in what sense could that value be said to be "moral"? An apple pie has more value (to most people) than a mud pie, in what sense would that ever be a moral distinction?
A working society has a practical value, in that it enables human beings to do the things they want to do, but in what sense is that anything but a practical concern? My drill works, which enables me to complete the project I'm undertaking, but there is no moral sense in which it is a "good" drill.
All laws are based on human morals (the morals of the time, specifically, as you said), because their purpose is to protect and further human interests, most of the time regardless of how it may affect other species. End of story.
