Philosophical Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage

[Carrikature]

Perhaps because like Obama, the German Shepherd, has an erection and actually mounts the woman. You are not twisting his paw. You know this stuff actually happens right?

I know it happens. I also know that erections are physiological reactions that can be triggered without indicating consent. Men can be raped, too, after all. Dogs can be trained to act in certain ways.

[seer]

I know it happens. I also know that erections are physiological reactions that can be triggered without indicating consent. Men can be raped, too, after all. Dogs can be trained to act in certain ways.

But what is your point? There is no obvious harm to the dog, but even if there was - so? We kill and eat animals all the time.

[The Thinker]

Oh stop! The German Shepherd is going to have emotional problems? Get real Thinker, he is a dog... This is a pleasurable event for him, probably no different than when he has sex with his own species... You really are reaching.

We don't know he won't. But because it involves a high possibility of abuse and the animal cannot give proper consent, just like a child can't, that's why it is wrong.

But why is your minority view correct? Why is it wrong to kill and eat animals to further my survival?

Same reason it's wrong for me to kill and eat you to further my survival, especially since you do not need meat to survive. Remember, it used to be the majority view that slavery was OK. So arguing from popularity is not "the decider."

Of course not, why would you even think that?

Because the only thing you've offered me is teleology as a justification on this subject. Since an 11 yr old who's hit puberty is able to reproduction, that's perfectly in line with the teleology.

You said 'teleology, can't be the principle' well of course it can - for the Theist, but not for the Atheist. And there is a teleology for a cell phone, a designed purpose, even if you don't use it correctly. And it is not a moral question. But when you use your sexual ability to bed a horse or rape a woman it is a moral question.

Oh jeez. There are two different usages of the term "principle" that any non-idiot could understand. "Teleology can exist in principle" --- is different from saying --"teleology cannot be the principle why which you decide rightness and wrongness in ethical questions" -- since you have not shown that using something for what it was not designed for, like a cell phone used as a paper weight is "wrong." Why is one a moral question and not another? Show me a principle that decides this.

Mind you, the human penis evolved its shape to scoop out other men's semen from the vagina, indicating that we are not monogamous by nature, and this literally shaped our evolution. Given that end (pun intended), if you claim teleology you could argue for non-monogamy.

Well Thinker, one would hope that you would do the right thing and marry your sheep before you bed her!

Yes, and I will make sure she is well taken care of!

[seer]

We don't know he won't. But because it involves a high possibility of abuse and the animal cannot give proper consent, just like a child can't, that's why it is wrong.

No Thinker, a dog is a dog, a human being is a human being.

Same reason it's wrong for me to kill and eat you to further my survival, especially since you do not need meat to survive. Remember, it used to be the majority view that slavery was OK. So arguing from popularity is not "the decider."

But that is merely your opinion. Most rational people make a clear distinction between killing a human and killing an animal for food. So no, it does not follow, it is merely your assertion that these are equal acts.

Because the only thing you've offered me is teleology as a justification on this subject. Since an 11 yr old who's hit puberty is able to reproduction, that's perfectly in line with the teleology.

What? Just because there is a teleology for human sexuality that does not necessarily lead to child molesting. You are not making sense.

Oh jeez. There are two different usages of the term "principle" that any non-idiot could understand. "Teleology can exist in principle" --- is different from saying --"teleology cannot be the principle why which you decide rightness and wrongness in ethical questions" -- since you have not shown that using something for what it was not designed for, like a cell phone used as a paper weight is "wrong." Why is one a moral question and not another? Show me a principle that decides this.

Mind you, the human penis evolved its shape to scoop out other men's semen from the vagina, indicating that we are not monogamous by nature, and this literally shaped our evolution. Given that end (pun intended), if you claim teleology you could argue for non-monogamy.

Sure and we rape by nature too, we kill and eat animals by nature, so what is your point?

Yes, and I will make sure she is well taken care of!

Bahahaha - I think I hear your wife calling...

[Carrikature]

But what is your point? There is no obvious harm to the dog, but even if there was - so? We kill and eat animals all the time.

The point is that the claim "it does no harm so it's no big deal" isn't supportable. I don't rely on the argument from harm like many do, but your counter-arguments against it don't work.

[seer]

The point is that the claim "it does no harm so it's no big deal" isn't supportable. I don't rely on the argument from harm like many do, but your counter-arguments against it don't work.

But there is no obvious harm, so really what exactly is the big deal.

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, a dog is a dog, a human being is a human being.

That's irrelevant. Neither the child nor the animal are capable of giving consent.

But that is merely your opinion. Most rational people make a clear distinction between killing a human and killing an animal for food. So no, it does not follow, it is merely your assertion that these are equal acts.

Most rational people don't have an argument showing why one is wrong and the other isn't. You are doing nothing but appealing to popularity. Give me the argument.

What? Just because there is a teleology for human sexuality that does not necessarily lead to child molesting. You are not making sense.

You are not making sense. Sex is for reproduction on your worldview. So if an 11 year old can reproduce, then she is capable of sex. Otherwise, why would god make her hit puberty if god didn't want her to have sex? So on your view, so long as a person can reproduce, sex with them is moral, since that is what the end goal of reproduction is for. You can't say she's too young. That would be your arbitrary opinion, since if she was too young, god wouldn't have made her hit puberty.

Sure and we rape by nature too, we kill and eat animals by nature, so what is your point?

So are you saying both are good? If no, then you cannot use what's natural in order to justify a claim.

Bahahaha - I think I hear your wife calling...

I think you're a little too obsessed with sheep sex. Stay away from farms.

[Carrikature]

But there is no obvious harm, so really what exactly is the big deal.

This sounds like teenager thinking. There's no 'obvious harm' from texting, but it gets people killed.

Regardless, if the goal is to cause as little harm as possible, any case of potential harm has to be examined. If an action results in an unknown level of harm but is easily avoided, one should simply avoid the action.

[Carrikature]

Most rational people don't have an argument showing why one is wrong and the other isn't. You are doing nothing but appealing to popularity. Give me the argument.

Where do you come up with 'most' here?

[seer]

Most rational people don't have an argument showing why one is wrong and the other isn't. You are doing nothing but appealing to popularity. Give me the argument.

Are you kidding? Because most rational people know the difference between a human being and animals, has atheism so polluted your mind? There is no difference between a baby squirrel and a child in your mind?

You are not making sense. Sex is for reproduction on your worldview. So if an 11 year old can reproduce, then she is capable of sex. Otherwise, why would god make her hit puberty if god didn't want her to have sex? So on your view, so long as a person can reproduce, sex with them is moral, since that is what the end goal of reproduction is for. You can't say she's too young. That would be your arbitrary opinion, since if she was too young, god wouldn't have made her hit puberty.

Nonsense, just because sex is primarily for reproduction does not mean that there can not be other considerations. A complete non sequitur.

So are you saying both are good? If no, then you cannot use what's natural in order to justify a claim.

What? You are the one who said we are not monogamous by nature, as if that had any meaning or was relevant to deciding what is moral or not.

[seer]

This sounds like teenager thinking. There's no 'obvious harm' from texting, but it gets people killed.

Regardless, if the goal is to cause as little harm as possible, any case of potential harm has to be examined. If an action results in an unknown level of harm but is easily avoided, one should simply avoid the action.

But there is no evidence of "unknown" harm here, because, well, it is unknown. BTW are you a vegetarian too?

[The Thinker]

Are you kidding? Because most rational people know the difference between a human being and animals, has atheism so polluted your mind? There is no difference between a baby squirrel and a child in your mind?

Of course there is a difference. But tell me what the principle is between why it's wrong to kill a person vs a dog, cat, horse, rabbit, snake, bacteria, etc. You are making an arbitrary distinction between humans and non-humans. If you claim it's because people have a soul, number 1, we don't, so this is just a false answer, and number 2, even if we did why would having a soul make any difference?

Nonsense, just because sex is primarily for reproduction does not mean that there can not be other considerations. A complete non sequitur.

So what are those other considerations? The only thing you've mentioned is teleology (reproduction), you haven't mentioned anything else.

What? You are the one who said we are not monogamous by nature, as if that had any meaning or was relevant to deciding what is moral or not.

You're the one saying X is natural therefore it is good, where X = killing and eating animals. So if you are not saying this, outline a moral principle showing your view is coherent.

[seer]

Of course there is a difference. But tell me what the principle is between why it's wrong to kill a person vs a dog, cat, horse, rabbit, snake, bacteria, etc. You are making an arbitrary distinction between humans and non-humans. If you claim it's because people have a soul, number 1, we don't, so this is just a false answer, and number 2, even if we did why would having a soul make any difference?

No Thinker, you don't get to force me into your narrow, parochial, materialist worldview. You already know the answer to this from a Christian perspective. Human beings, unlike other animals, are created in the image of God and are immortal. And generally God puts more value on human beings, than animals, as Christ taught. I understand in your world that a rat is a pig, a pig is a dog, and a dog is a boy.

So what are those other considerations? The only thing you've mentioned is teleology (reproduction), you haven't mentioned anything else.

No Thinker, I NEVER said that that reproduction was the only reason for human sexuality. In scripture it is part and parcel of the loving expression between a man and a wife.

You're the one saying X is natural therefore it is good, where X = killing and eating animals. So if you are not saying this, outline a moral principle showing your view is coherent.

Stop trying to turn it around, you are the one who said that we are not monogamous by nature, suggesting that that made it morally acceptable. My point is that it not immoral to kill and eat animals, since animals are lesser creatures and made for our consumption - when necessary.

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, you don't get to force me into your narrow, parochial, materialist worldview. You already know the answer to this from a Christian perspective. Human beings, unlike other animals, are created in the image of God and are immortal. And generally God puts more value on human beings, than animals, as Christ taught. I understand in your world that a rat is a pig, a pig is a dog, and a dog is a boy.

Why does being created in the image of god make any difference? Why does being immortal make any difference? Not only are both of these things completely false and faith-based, even if they are assumed to be true for the sake of argument, they make no sense. And on my world rats, pigs, boys, and dogs are not all the same.

No Thinker, I NEVER said that that reproduction was the only reason for human sexuality. In scripture it is part and parcel of the loving expression between a man and a wife.

What if that wife is an 11 your old girl who has hit puberty? Stop avoiding the topic.

Stop trying to turn it around, you are the one who said that we are not monogamous by nature, suggesting that that made it morally acceptable. My point is that it not immoral to kill and eat animals, since animals are lesser creatures and made for our consumption - when necessary.

No stupid, I'm using your own logic here against you. I'm not saying X is natural, therefore good. You are saying that exact thing on killing and eating animals: it is natural, therefore good.

Made for your consumption? That means you are a creationist and you believe animals were created for your consumption. OK, now demonstrate creationism is true and that animals were created for your consumption. If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

If you can't then your worldview is built on sand. If my worldview is that Christians were created for me to kill, what level of evidence would you require by me to show this is true? If my worldview is that women were created for me to rape, what level of evidence would you require by me to show this is true?

[seer]

Why does being created in the image of god make any difference? Why does being immortal make any difference? Not only are both of these things completely false and faith-based, even if they are assumed to be true for the sake of argument, they make no sense. And on my world rats, pigs, boys, and dogs are not all the same.

Why don't they make sense? If a man is immortal and can reach eternal bliss, or face eternal damnation then just that fact puts man on a different, more serious level than the animal. Then there is the fact that God, our Creator values us more - and His opinion is the only one that matters in the end. But even if this is not the case, we don't need any more reason than we like to eat animals. I prefer steak to carrots. And that is all the "logic" I need.

What if that wife is an 11 your old girl who has hit puberty? Stop avoiding the topic.

I'm not avoiding anything. Genuine affection and love requires the freely giving of consent, and the maturity to understand consent. Of course in your world there are only determined resposes.

No stupid, I'm using your own logic here against you. I'm not saying X is natural, therefore good. You are saying that exact thing on killing and eating animals: it is natural, therefore good.

No idiot, my point was that it was not immoral, apart from your "opinion."

Made for your consumption? That means you are a creationist and you believe animals were created for your consumption. OK, now demonstrate creationism is true and that animals were created for your consumption. If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

But like I said above, it doesn't matter. I have a taste for meat, and that is all I need. I certainly don't need a logical syllogism to justify my choice or desire any more than the lion does.

If my worldview is that Christians were created for me to kill, what level of evidence would you require by me to show this is true? If my worldview is that women were created for me to rape, what level of evidence would you require by me to show this is true?

Go for it.