Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Ok, so now that we are on the same footing, why does natural law ethically matter to homosexuality? We have already established the naturalistic fallacy.
Man's unique design sets us apart from all other animals by enabling and propelling us to overcome the inherent flaws and limitations of the animal kingdom.
One of the attributes of Man's design that serves us to overcome the inherent flaws and limitations of the animal kingdom is our
unique ability to call on the Name of the Creator-Force. One of the tools afforded to Man to assist Man in subduing primitive instinct and establishing Man's Dominion over the Earth is Marriage: A special relationship forged by the Name of the Creator-Force.
Other animals may form life-long bonds and raise offspring together, but they
can not forge that relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force and deliberately value and persue that relationship above all others. They do what they do by instinct, nothing more.
A life-long, monogamous relationship between a heterosexual man and woman, who bear and raise children, but who never Marry, does not posses the same value as a similar but Married couple. This is because the unmarried couple, by
choosing not too forge their relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force, are doing nothing different then what is found in the animal kingdom.
A life-long, monogamous relationship between two men or two women, who posses and raise children, and legally 'marry, does not posses the same value as an opposite-sex, Married couple. This is because the same-sex couple, by
not being able to forge their relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force, are doing nothing different then what is found in the animal kingdom.
The life-long, monogamous relationships of a heterosexual man and multiple women, who bear and raise children, and are legally 'married to each other, do not posses the same value as a 1 man and 1 woman, Married couple's relationship. This is because the man and his harem, by
not being able to forge their relationship by the Name of the Creator-Force, are doing nothing different then what is found in the animal kingdom.
(Too be specific, the *first* man-woman Marriage is legitimate, while each of the man's relationships with each woman added after the first is Adultery, and the women's marital relationships with eachother are Adultery and Homosexual.)
Homosexuality, being a variation, is not a part of Man's unique design that sets us apart from all other animals. Homosexuality is one of the inherent flaws and limitations of the animal kingdom, of which, Man's unique design propells us to cure and correct, not surrender too.
If we endorse and promot homosexuality as a preferred, elevated and superior relationship, then we, by not being able to call on the Name of the Creator-Force to forge these relationships, are doing nothing better then what is found in the animal kingdom.
If Man's law views alternative relationships as having the same value as a Marriage, then Man's law becomes no better then "The Law of the Jungle". Marriage is *not* "
strictly a legal contract", because Man's law is based on Man's reason. Man's reason is an attribute of the same design by which the unique ability to call on the Name of the Creator-Force is also an attribute. Too embrace the attribute of reason but to shun the attribute of calling on the Name of the Creator-Force is too cherry-pick which parts of our design to follow based on what we find convenient.
By choosing too not overcome this inherent flaw and limitation of the animal kingdom, we are choosing too run agents our design, indeed our very purpose; and that is hypocrisy in motion.
Gay 'marriage = hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy = unethical.
Gay 'marriage = unethical.
(You may note that I am assigning the moral value of "unethical" to gay 'marriage, *not* to homosexuality. Like Diabetes, a learning disorder, having been born a preemie crack-baby, possesing a chemical dependence or a physical deformity: homosexuality is a personal flaw and limitation to be overcome, not surrendered to.)