In his last argument Mr. Briggs mentioned the argument of choices, and also the difference between the rights to be happy and the pursuit of happiness.
First, to say that the government cannot guarantee happiness only the pursuit of happiness is one thing. But to claim that the state cannot pass law that could help the attainment of happiness is another thing.
Like we saw in question 4, love as very little to do with marriage, and marriage is not a guaranty of love. In the same way, wanting to be married has little to do with happiness, and a lot to do with the economic advantages that come from the union. If marriage was a requirement for happiness, then why are so many married couples so miserable?
Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? A simple answer is no. A more complete answer is that in pedophilia there is no mutual feeling. To claim sexual orientation, you need to have reciprocity of feeling. Gay, Bisexual and heterosexual couples can claim reciprocity with their counterpart, Two man, two woman or a man and a woman can declare their love for each other. A pedophile can’t make the same claim, because pedophile will use subterfuge to prevent the child from speaking of their relation. Pedophilia is also age restrictive, i.e. that when the child reach a certain age the interest from the pedophile vanishes.
Attraction to animal or inanimate object is also not a sexual orientation since there is no reciprocity from the animal or object. Nothing prevent these person to claim that they are married, but no one, including the state, has to agree with them either.
Should bisexual have the right to marry a man and a woman? Again, no but they can or should be able to marry either a man or a woman. The reasons that were mentioned before are that polygamy is illegal and a contract is between two people or parties (I’m unable to find an example implicating 3).
Is sexual orientation a choice? No. What defines it, it is unknown. A good example is what determines if we are left or right handed. Do we choose one or the other? No. We just are either left, right or both, like people are gay, straight or both. They just are, they don’t choose which one they are. A man who said he was gay and got married to a woman later probably was bisexual to begin with.
Gay people can’t reproduce, yet they still exist which might mean that they are a natural, although rare, occurrence in society.
Life is not fair, yet it doesn’t mean that society doesnâ€™t have to try to make it fairer? If people believe that being married will help them be happier, why should the state stand in their way? If someone is blind or becomes blind does it means that we should make sure that these people have a miserable life? Or shouldn’t society try to find ways to help people with handicap be the most autonomous they can?
As is well known, the right to pursue happiness in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence—Happy Birthday, America! May you outlive your enemies, foreign and domestic—was the right to property. It was changed for aesthetic purposes (unfortunately). Anyway, since my happiness isn’t your happiness, the government in passing its laws to “allow” happiness must choose which happiness is the better. And that is what we are discussing.
Allard: “why are so many married couples so miserable?” I instead ask you: Why are so many married couples so happy? I next week attend the 50th wedding anniversary of my parents, a not-rare occurrence among my relatives.
Although I agree with Allard that it is not, pedophilia is increasingly claimed as an “orientation” by—who else?—academics. “To claim sexual orientation, you need to have reciprocity of feeling.” Well, children have feelings, do they not? Dogs reciprocate their love towards their masters routinely. Which is why some are arguing for interspecies “marriage.” Yes, they are. What arguments are there to refute them? As long as we can cobble enough votes together to pass the redefinition, then it shall be “Man and Sow”, or “Man and Hog”, if that be your preference.
Polygamists are also calling their proclivities an “orientation”, and the call is increasingly being made that polygamy should be allowed. No use pretending this is going to go away. If “marriage” is whatever the majority say it is, then any habitation can be called “marriage”.
As distressing proof that I have been right all along and that the only argument the SSM crowd has is “I want it!”, I offer the above (and the comments in Part II). Philosophical and legal argument cannot just focus on what a mass of people are screaming and marching for now, at this instant in time. It must consider all possibilities, and these possibilities cannot be dismissed because “‘Nobody’ wants that now.” For one, as I’ve shown, it’s not “nobody”. For another, it’s irrelevant whether anybody is now asking for, say, dog-man “marriages”. We have to be able to show why such unions are wrong or right. And this must be something beyond a raw, unsupported, unsubstantiated “I don’t want it!”
Fact is, there just is no justification for SSM except “I want it!”, and to deny undesirable “unions” we only hear “I don’t want it!” But science and natural law offer a consistent, justifiable, intelligible solution for both. However, in the next and last part (tomorrow), I shall show my political solution to the whole mess.
Allard: “Is sexual orientation a choice? No.” This is simultaneously false and unproven. It is false because we have direct evidence that some people chose with what or whom they seek their physical pleasures. And we have direct evidence that some people have changed their minds about these activities over the course of their lives. Some “gays” choose to switch to heterosexuality, for example. And in the acronym LGBTQIA the “Q” is for “questioning”, which admits some are unsure. The only response to this direct evidence is to say, dogmatically, “I don’t believe it!” or (of those who switch from gay to straight) “He was no true Scotsman in the first place.” Well, I can’t talk you out of your love of theory.
The claim is also unknown because, despite an earnest search, no biological or environmental factor has been discovered which makes an “orientation” (besides normal, of course). This does not prove that such factors do not exist, but it is rational to suspect that they do not; or rather, that there exists simple “switches”. Human behavior is too complex for such simple explanations.
About being blind or lame, Allard asks ought we not to “help people with handicap be the most autonomous they can”. Yes, of course; absolutely yes. But this does not mean that we should call the blind “sighted” or the lame “whole and able” to protect their feelings. And it would be the very epitome of absurdity to create laws which force the populace to go along with these redefinitions. Right?
Whoever does not act like a lady or gentleman in responding will be banned.