Oh, so all that about whether or not homosexuals would reproduce for pragmatic purposes to perpetuate the species was only to show that heterosexuality is "better". Gotcha!
So your argument per se begins with the premise that heterosexuality is "better". I am afraid I do not see a reasonable basis for equating a particular bias of nature with an assessment of "better". I assume you mean "better" here in terms of "superior" rather than as in more moral. If this assumption is incorrect please let me know.
I don't grant that you have shown that a Nature bias equates to some generalized "better". I think you have merely stated it is so.
In any event, I will look at your argument:
1). It is important for society to make claims regarding the appropriateness of certain sexual behaviours--especially regarding the young,
2). Allowing homosexuals to marry legitimizes the homosexual lifestyle and makes homosexuality appear equal to heterosexuality,
3). Heterosexuality is "better" than homosexuality,
4). If society does not clearly keep in mind that heterosexuality is "better" then such will erode the abilty to make MORAL judgment on sexual matters such as petting, promiscuity, sexual experimentation, etc.,
5). Homosexuals are legal persons entitled to all rights and freedoms to which legal persons are entitled,
6). BUT society is justified in restricting the right to marry because societies ability to make claims with regard to sexual morals would be compromised by granting such a right,
7). Societies desire to make claims on sexual mores trumps the rights of homosexuals to equality of rights and freedoms.
_____________________
Comments:
3). I don't think that a particular bias in favour of heterosexuality equates to "better". You have not shown that it does. It is obvious that homosexuals could reproduce to any level they desired, and if natural biases favour homosexuals in matters such as kindness, affection, artistic temperament, or any other, then this would presumably make them "better". Of course, I make no claims that a preponderance of biases favour either homosexuals or heterosexuals--only that the question seems impossible to answer, and that a reproductive bias in and of itself is not sufficient to make a claim of "better".
I can certainly use a "thought experiment" to envision a homosexual world where mating between opposite sexes is done for the joy that will be experienced by having and raising children; where rape and violence against women is practically non-existent, etc. etc. etc. I could conclude that homosexuality is thus "better". But all this would be conjecture, and rather pointless.
I think it is obvious that any attempt to prove that one sexual orientation is "better" than another is a clear attempt to establish the inferiority of a group of people. Certainly if their feelings are inferior and their orientation is inferior, etc., and these things are essential to their personhood...then they are obviously inferior as people. It seems to me that such an attitude encourages a dismissive and superior approach to them.
Where does one draw the line once one erodes the essential equality of people and their feelings and their sexual identity. Once society classifies an identifiable group as "inferior" or less than their "betters" in some way, it erodes her ability to be impartial, and to uphold the essential equality of people.
For this reason, I think it very dangerous ground to consider that any identifiable group is "inferior" to another, and to use this as a basis for treating them differently under the Constitution.
4). It does not appear logical to me that society will have less ability to moralize if they allow homosexuals to marry. There is no reason to believe that the ability to moralize on petting, sexual experimentation, promiscuity and the like is compromised by a recognition that homosexuals are equal as persons to others and that their sexual orientation is natural to them and fitting.
I don't see a rational basis for linking the specific acceptance of homosexuals as legitimate persons with legitimate sexual orientation to an inability to moralize on sexual values. There would need to be a hidden premise in there, it seems to me, that homosexuality is "bad" or "immoral", and so far as I am aware you do not wish to use this as a premise. So if we are not legitimizing anything that is "bad" , but merely different, then I don't know by what linkage such legitimacy is purported to erode our ability to comment on sexual mores or other moral matters.
6). Well, I think I covererd this in (4). Unless we are legitimizing something that is immoral (and imoral things are practiced by immoral people) then I see no argument for how it should compromise the ability to moralize.
7). Even were all my previous comments invalid, I would still hold that (7) is incorrect and that, indeed, individual rights and freedoms and entitlement to equality as persons absolutely trumps the rights of society to moralize. It is not evan debatable, IMO. Without honoring rights and freedoms without exception, society HAS no basis on which to speak to moral issues. An immoral entity has no basis on which to insist on moral claims, whether it be about petting or any other sexual practice.
The Bill being debated in Canada would see homosexuals given the right to marry persons of the opposite sex. Thus they would be given the right to seek happiness and social acceptance just as a decent society wishes all her citizens to have. This would in no way lessen the ability of society and churches to moralize. It creates no compunction for churches to perform marriage ceremonies which violate their moral codes. Indeed it provides a metaphysical platform to emphasize their moral differences and to celebrate their moral superiority.
But the position of Government would be that homosexuals are persons with equal rights and freedoms and that they are not immoral people prima facie. By claiming they are not immoral we are positing that their sexual orientation and behaviour--in private with consent--is not immoral. Rational people here do not anticipate that this will compromise the ability of society to differentiate between other matters of moral or sexual interest.
It also acknowledges by extension that homosexuality is an orientation which accrues naturally to a certain percentage of the population and does not constitute an inferiority, weakness, or baseness of character in and of itself.
I am away for a couple of weeks. Have fun. |
