This is a question at the ROOT of philosophy and morality. How do you define "right" and "wrong". This could run into another 25 page thread if we let it.
There are actually a TON of great works on this ranging from Plato, to Augustine to Kant.
The american public is STILL reaching for an answer to this question. And right now we have laws that are clearly based in 3 or 4 DIFFERENT views of morality. However, seemingly, we are moving towards a stance of "if it doesn't hurt me, you can do it."
More of a UTILITY theory of morality. Which is very much so a part of the libertarian stance of politics. Which is, in MANY ways, the exact stance I agree with. You should be allowed to do anything you want to yourself or with/to another consenting adult AS LONG as it does not hurt anyone outside of the consenting group.
The argument, in my mind, is DOES GAY MARRIAGE hurt anyone else. (BTW, I think you have to draw the line for "anyone else" somewhere too. You have to draw it at "normal rational human beings". In other words, if a weirdo gets offended by the color green, I can't be expected to stop wearing it).
Clearly, murder hurts other people. But does doing drugs? That's up for debate. Does being gay? I see no evidence for this, but it is possible. If it were shown that a majority of the US population is very distinctly offended and hurt by homosexual couples then clearly it should be illegal. But I don't think that is the case because there is not "utility theory" reason for it to hurt people.
Clearly a person's preferred political stance is a product of their stance on morality. So any argument for/against homosexual marriage is only as strong as the case for the system of morality on which it's based. It doesn't appear that anybody has a definitive answer to the question of defining "right" and "wrong", so it follows that nobody can claim (with a straight face) to have a definitive answer to the political issue of homosexual marriage. They can only claim to have the final answer within their own moral frame of reference.
However after saying that, I do see that there is a reason beyond just personal preference to favour one morality over another. A person's ideas of morality are a result of their worldview. A Christian believes in God and that God makes the rules for his creation, which gives rise to biblical morality. Muslims believe in a different god and that he makes different rules, which gives rise to another morality. Most atheists, agnostics and those with belief in a personal god, probably believe that humans make up their own rules. Utility theory falls out of these latter worldviews because it represents the maximum amount of freedom people can have without the fear of going to the shops and getting their legs broken or wallet stolen, all quite legally. To me it seems that any position on morality and it's attached political positions can indeed be attacked on the strength (or lack thereof) of the underlying worldview.
So my point after all this is that if somebody (*cough Rosie *cough* ;-)) wishes to suggest (credibly) that Blackvulture's position on this amendment is unacceptable because "Its people like you that are generalising your beliefs to a wider population assuming the Bible is inerrant- which is clearly not the case," then they had better be bringing some evidence to the table and be prepared to back it up. It should also be noted that anybody supporting this amendment isn't necessarily trying to impose their beliefs onto a wider population just their morality, which is exactly what everybody who has signed the petition is also trying to do. Similarly (*cough* Andrew *cough*) labeling blackvulture a bigot, while it may well be true, does not achieve anything for your cause or against his, everyone's a bigot and the question is only which bigotry is the best bigotry.
Of course, nobody lets go of their worldview without a fight, and so debate in that area will never end. But neither side of the debate gets a free ride. Am I right or what?
-Kev
Yes. You are right on 99% of your points.
BUT you leave out some other key points and implications.
The largest being that Utility theory is inherantly a part of every other system of morality. Most "divinely inspired" systems of morality declare that God reveals some rights and wrongs through observation and experience and others are revealed only through faith and an internal feeling of "right" and "wrong" that western philosophy often calls a conscience.
Therefore, Utility theory should directly be a part of EVERY morality, just different moralities justify it in different ways. Ujustified murder is readily and apparently wrong, therefore it is a part of all rational morality. Now, the point of debate for us is, once again, if allowing gay marriage really is empyrically OK. Obviously, I feel the answer is "yes" because it don't see any evidence that it does harm to the rest of the people in the world. Someone may be able to argue for a "no", but I have yet to see a good argument there.
I think EVERYONE in this thread would agree that people should be allowed to BELIEVE whatever they want. This is a basic premise of the United States and western civilization as we know it.
So if we assume that everyone should be entitled to their own system of morality, then the question becomes,
"What system of morality can we base LAW'S on that will not infringe on the rights of of the people to have their own personal morality?"When that becomes the question, the answer must be "Utility Theory". The only morality that is defineable and explainable using empyrical evidence and debate. The only morality that is based in facts and reality and not simply in beliefs or intuition or "forms" that exist outside of the material realm.
THEREFORE, while I fully support Rosie and Kev's right to believe in their own system of morality (even when I diverges from my own) I disagree with their right to convert their personal morality to LAW.
Law's should be objective, not subjective.
Which is largely why most American's feel that Abortion is wrong, but it is still legal in the US. Empyrically, there is nothing wrong with abortion. You cannot prove to me that abortion harms anyone and often times it saves the mother from a lot of pain and unhappiness.
But morally, I still feel it is wrong. But I have no desire to impose my personal morality on the rest of the world.
