If that is the question, then, no, I do not think that reasonable nor rational.
Would you, then, say that people who call to "present students with all the sides of the 'debate'" are unreasonable and irrational?
The ultimate point here is, it seems awfully convenient that your personal position is
just far enough to the right to be perfectly reasonable (and therefore, people who attack your viewpoint from a position further left may not be being "open-minded people of education, good grooming, and above-average intelligence"), yet you seem to agree that people to
your right are just being kooks.
If we want to play the "all political opinions are sacred expressions of personal freedom and how dare you call my position intolerant" game, that's fine. However, it would be disingenuous for me to say that the people who disagree from my left are unreasonable, and the people who disagree from my right are irrational, but I'm in the sweet spot of reasonableness and rationality.
I would suggest to you that if you're denying natural law exists (I don't think you are, but, to be cautious I will respond) then we have nothing to discuss, as, unless we are all under pains, and likewise have the capability to comprehend right from wrong naturally, we cannot really even begin to discuss this as though it were a thing to be argued.
Sorry, I thought you were referring to "natural law" as it relates to
biology.
If you're talking about some sort of innate system of morals bestowed upon us by our Creator, you are correct in stating that we have nothing to discuss.
If you're talking about a biologically inherited moral code, I would ask for a clarification: are you claiming that
all human societies across
all eras of history have a shared idea about what is right and wrong? Because such a claim would be ludicrous on its face.
Now, proceeding on, the natural law argument would be as follows: since the biological purpose of sex is generation, that, correspondingly, unless the sex you involve yourself in is in some way of a generative nature, then it is immoral.
Is it "immoral" to eat when you are not hungry, or drink when you are not thirsty? What part of "natural law" assigns morality to biological functions?
You object to Buddhagirl's implication that your position is based on religious grounds, but with the kinds of "sex for pleasure is
immoral" claims you are making, you are a hairsbreadth away from justifying her implication.
Depends. If one called for such a criminalization based solely on the belief that homosexuals were icky, or some other such flimsy justification, then, yeah, I'd say so. If they did so based on the natural law argument, no, I don't think so. It's a valid argument.
Is it bigotry to say that homosexuality should be criminalized because it is "immoral"? Or does that question depend on whether I say it is immoral according to [religion x] or according to some nebulous, unfalsifiable interpretation of what "natural law" is?
I agree the "think of the children" argument doesn't seem to motivate too many people in certain contexts. Obviously, the "think of the children" argument motivates you in the context that, were gays allowed to marry, their families may be more stable, and therefore provide for the children they raise in a more preferential way. However, obviously, the "think of the children" arguments from the right do not motivate you.
First off: I daresay "think of the children" is overwhelmingly the number one rationale from the right as to why SSM should be illegal (at least, in the public policy sphere, where less nuanced objections like "the Bible says it is forbidden!" are not very well-received).
And as for me personally, I am not at all motivated by whether the children of SSM couples have a better or worse life. I only mention it because reality (SSM would benefit children of a homosexual relationship, compared to them remaining unmarried) runs directly counter to conservative claims that SSM would make things worse.
I doubt the study had enough data to measure the difference between those children raised by married vs. unmarried same-sex families.
Then what possible value does this study have in determining whether or not SSM should be permitted? That, not "Are homosexuals good parents?", is the question at hand.
Even then, what does "married" mean: does it mean currently married, or does it mean married and then divorced. For example, a person who was born in 2003, in MA, shortly after Goodrich, and raised exclusively by homosexuals, who were married for the first 5 years of their life, and then divorced for the last 4, and then raised by only one of the two - are they raised by married, or unmarried homosexuals? I... well, how would you define it? I don't know.
Every one of these questions applies just as equally to straight relationships. Does that fact complicate the claim that marriage improves the stability and durability of (straight) families?
I would simply ask that you provide some data to show that the presumption is no longer negated when children are raised by married same-sex couples. I doubt that there is data to show the presumption carries, but, I will state that I could be proven wrong.
I'm not sure what you're asking for, here. The vast majority of objective benefits of being married (in particular, all legal relationships between parent and child, as well as between spouses) apply regardless of the sex of the parent, so that alone shows empirical benefit to the child. You would need to show how these empirical legal benefits are somehow offset because of the homosexuality of the parents, but
not due to factors that would continue to exist if said homosexual parents were simply cohabitating unmarried. That would be a challenge, to say the least.
Now, how is it that you claim the real policy here is not just a sham cover for bigotry? You certainly do as regards laws against homosexuals, even when a cogent reply is given.
I gave two reasons for prohibition of incest; neither of them rests on a religious (or nebulous "natural law") argument for morality.
If the only rationale I could give against incest was that "it's morally wrong to have sex with your daughter," then I would agree that our positions are equal.
People who are pro-pedophile, and, assumably, the pedophiles themselves would simply reply that these "real polic[ies]" are bigotry against their natural sexual inclinations towards children, even if the timing of it is keyed to the onset of puberty, rather than a bright-line rule for 18-yos.
How is it that you find
denying the desires of one person to victimize another and
denying the desires of two consenting adults to be equivalent policies? I suppose next, we can discuss how anti-rape policies are "bigoted" against the desires of rapists?
For example, one could justify laws against homosexuals on the basis of:
1) prevent the denigration of public morality
2) to cease the spreading of disease
"Public morality" has been asked and answered; it's a thinly-veiled appeal to religious beliefs.
If you want to argue against homosexuality on the basis of disease control, have at it! In contrast to vague appeals to morality, that's something that can be objectively measured. Two challenges, though:
1) banning SSM (and not homosexuality itself) does nothing to stop the spreading of disease (in fact, it would seem to worsen the problem)
2) I look forward to arguments as to how lesbian sex is more prone to spread disease than, say, plain old heterosexual intercourse
After all, couldn't a pro-incest individual state the following:
As to 1) the state doesn't prevent the coupling of other unions which will produce genetically compromised offspring. Why are we singled out?
As to 2) no proof that this occurs, and/or not applicable to the situation in which an individual incest practitioner finds themself.
1) Prohibition of incest is much more feasible than commissioning genetic profiles of all citizens (and yes, practicality of implementation does count for something); furthermore, according to your linked opinion piece, several states
do prohibit marriages from those suffering from specific STDs
2) Plenty of laws exist under these conditions; e.g. it is illegal for
me personally to own a biological weapon
Additionally, I would like to note that I find it puzzling that we are having this proxy argument about incest when
you don't agree with incest, either. Is the endgame of this line of discussion that I say, "This has opened my eyes... I have discovered my own latent bigotry"? Or is it that if you don't agree with incest, then you have no business telling someone else that they are wrong to advocate for re-segregating schools?
You seem to see bigotry as some sort of binary flag... like saying, "Sure, LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Act, but he wouldn't let his daughters date a black man, so he was just as much of a bigot as George Wallace." Bigotry has always been a sliding scale; people that I consider extremely intolerant today (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) would have been considered radical liberals 500 years ago.
If you want to make the argument that 200 years from now, my great-great-great grandchildren will look back and lament my inactivity in defending civil rights for incestuous couples, fine; I can live with that. (I have already come to terms with the idea that my distant descendants will condemn me for being an evil meat-eater.) But today,
right now, you are advocating the denial of civil rights to homosexuals... at a time when such rights are socially acceptable to endorse. So let's not lose sight of the context at hand.
Author