I was debating this somewhere. Should homosexuals have the right to marriage or recognized civil unions? If yes, why? IF not why not?
Discuss. Please offer justifiable arguments.
I say they should do what they want to. Their union doesn’t interfere not one bit with my quality of life and the safety of my family. Whatever makes them happy.
I think alot of times people forget that homosexuals are people just like us. And they have desires and dreams as well.
Yes, they should. Civilization isn’t going to collapse simply because two people love each other enough to want to spend their lives together. Why deny them the same rights as heterosexuals??
I agree. I think homosexuals should have the ability- just like heterosexuals- to formalise their commitment to on eanother. I certainly don’t havea problem with it.
i don’t think it should be done in a church or in a religious sense of a wedding as homosexuality is not natural in the eyes of religion so therefore a homosexual wedding is something that fundamentally should not take place in a church, but i don’t honestly care whether or not they do get married anyway. whatever makes you happy (as long as you do not harm others in the process) has always been one of my beliefs.
Some people would argue the case of moral harm to the general senstivities of society based on a relativity sense. What do say about this?
you didn’t justify your claim. On what bases should homosexuals have the privilege to civil unions if they can’t offer rational argument on their case?
How can love lead to the collapse of society? What constitutes love and its expression–sex or mere intellectual affections?
Love doesn’t lead to the collapse of society. What I was saying is that there are many out there who believe giving homosexuals the right to marry is going to be the end of the world, or some foolishness like that.
Nuel asked:
Your questioned is not posed correctly. Homosexuality is not an identity but a preference. It would be more correct to say, should those who practice homosexuality have the right to …
People who pratice homosexuality don’t have a right to marriage or civil unions with the same sex for the mere fact that it is unnatural. Civil law is based on natural law.
Perhaps youre using the phrase ‘Natural law’ as a technical term
Even so, can you not see the problems of the implication that homsexuals are ‘unnatural’?
I recognise that you havent said that but it is an implication of your statement.
Let’s turn to Hume’s age old argument about what’s natural on this one:
anything that occurs is natural…because nature doesn’t prevent it…
the unnatural is therefore impossible. This is the argument he used as proof agaisnt miracles…
just in case you forgot you were on a philosophy site!
Social construct/queer theorists argue that sexuality can be seen as identity-based since sexual norms are determined by society at large. How do you address this?
I don’t implicate natural effects in arguments like this because we really can’t prescribe the intents of nature. The term is ambiguous at best.
Nature, to me, constitutes the forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world, but how do we know the intents of nature?–difficult question. And how do we prove what nature entails and what it doesn’t? Personally I think Hume’s argument is simplistic because nature, by his argument, is predicated on futuristic trends. To me, Hume’s argument appears escapist–instead of explaining what nature is, he bases nature on time progression–this is very easy; I can easily say that what is good is what goodness that happen with respect to time. This doesn’t explain the essence of good. Therefore, I don’t consider Hume’s claim logical enough for our purposes, so we can abandon it partially.
Here is an argument offered by heterosexual proponents.
It is apparent that marriage, by definition, is referred to as a civil union between man and wife. Evolutionarily speaking, the process ensures the continuation of species, so it is probably more logical to accept heterosexual unions than homosexual. How do homosexual supporters refute this claim?
You are not offering supporting arguments for your claims.
Personally I don’t think offering homosexuals the right to marry will cause the end of the world, but do you think some harm can induced by this event–morally or otherwise? And consider this–I think you will agree that a rapist is not as moral as non-rapist given that all of their previous actions are at the same level. So it follows that some actions are more moral than others. Do you think we can extend this case to matters of sexuality? Yes or no? Justify please.
Hello Nuel,
Yes, sexuality is identity-based. My identity is always male and I am sometimes sexual but sexuality is something different from sexual preference. In the case of same-sex preference, it is something that is learned and not identity-based.
Sexual norms may be determined by society but is this the factor in deciding the rightness or wrongness of a thing? What right then do we have to criticize fascism or enslavement since certain societies at one time or another determined them? Alas, this is a bit too pragmatic for me.
But it happens that what is right (moral) usually prevails in the long run, and thus becomes espoused by the society–For instance you mentioned fascism and enslavement. Are the majority of individuals supportive of homosexual unions or denunciative of it? If yes, can we conclude that society agrees that homosexuality is morally abberrant or not? And if NO, where might this lead us?
Great responses by the way.
Noel : Here is an argument offered by heterosexual proponents.
It is apparent that marriage, by definition, is referred to as a civil union between man and wife. Evolutionarily speaking, the process ensures the continuation of species, so it is probably more logical to accept heterosexual unions than homosexual. How do homosexual supporters refute this claim?
how actually by having those homosexual couple wont ensures the continuation of species ? Just by supporting those homosexuals will not then make the hetero become homosexual too. And mentioning on the continuation of species , dont you think its kinda unfair for not supporting homosexual because of this reason but still suporting heterosexual couple who decide not to have child, or the unfertile couple. i dont thing continuation of species as a reason. 
Well, we are going to to decide if it’s unfair or not. Infertility, it seems to me, is not based on your inherent actions, and so adoption can be a recourse–infertility is not what you do. In fact, the act of heterosexuality is in line with the procreation process. Also tools have their own respective functions, like the male sexual organ with respect to the female.
Now let me ask, should homosexuals adopt kids given that their presence is a consequence of a heterosexual union? I mean, if your presence is based on heterosexuality, why act in a way that is incompatible with the means of your primal existence? Any thoughts on this?
Hello Nuel
For the sake of argument I would say this is true but it also begs the question: What is right or wrong? If what is right prevails in the long run then it follows what is right was known beforehand. Enslavement was known to be morally wrong yet while society practiced enslavement, hence America and its civil war. Nevertheless, it should be easy to see that what is right and wrong is not determined by society. It is usually determined by a few. So, the question is: what is right before it becomes espoused by society?
Well, law in a civil society is not determined by mob rule, although some of the times the mob is right. The majority may say to hang all philosophers but I would have a hard time saying that is a moral thing to do. So, even though the majority does in fact find homosexuality aberrant, it would not be the place from which I would say homosexuality is morally wrong. Nay, I would make my case from natural law. As a side note, didn’t the American courts rule that abortion should be legalized and, yet, weren’t in fact the majority against it?
Hello gavtmcc,
Then what argument can we use to say ANY of my arguments are wrong since ANYTHING that occurs is natural? Do any arguments go counter to what is natural and if they do, wouldn’t they be unnatrual?
What is explicitly affirmed but implicitly denied is false.
Thank you for the reminder.