Philosophical Vegan Forum

I am not sure if it exist's, however it would be interesting if there was a structured and detailed, break down and rebuttal of Christian arguments against gay marriage, especially the ones that try to take a secular perspective. I have found fragments that break down arguments, and rebuttals that address general statements, but I have not found a collection of detailed rebuttals to numerous popular arguments especially one that rebuttals actual Christian literature.

The BBCode for URLs seems to be turned off at the moment.

This is on my mind because my mother, who does not know about my sexuality, handed me the pamphlet found here ==> http://www.sydneycatholic.org/pdf/DMM-booklet_web.pdf . The Pastoral letter is incredibly well written, and well produced, and leaves those whom are not sceptical minded, like my mother, convinced in its favour. From my look at the letter, especially the "evidence" provided, it is filled with flaws. Such as the studies into single parenting held up as evidence against gay's parenting, the studies with a sample size of about 50 family's with gay and straight parents, the studies where The researchers held a clear bias, finally one of the studies acknowledged that the amount of serious negative effective where slim in cases of straight and gay couples. (this is going off of memory as I read the studies about a fortnight ago).

I am still in high school (year 12) and it likely shows, I am lost when looking for counter studies.

As the title of the topic suggests, I am suggesting we write a response letter to said literature. Although I am aware that TVA may want to phase out exactly this kind of letter video. Posting it on a separate channel (perhaps a channel specifically for forum projects, such as the other letters) or keeping it as a text letter are options.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Gay_marriage http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Homosexuality

Iron chariots is great in such systematic debunking. Still hoping a parallel project could be done for veganism.

garrethdsouza wrote:Iron chariots is great in such systematic debunking.

The links you provided where far from detailed, although he does reference Christian material allot.

iron chariots wrote: Children's interests
"It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. [2]"
Research shows that having two parents, either same sex or heterosexual, is about the same for children.
"On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association and other health, professional, and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation [4]"

this is the whole section on one of the major secular arguments against same sex marriage.

do you think it is worth creating a letter that more thoroughly rebuttals the claims of the pastoral letter?

garrethdsouza wrote: Still hoping a parallel project could be done for veganism.

don't expect it to be in any way associated with iron chariots, as the open letter, addressed to its author suggests, Matt is not in with veganism.

I believe vegan has a page in the rational wiki http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vegan there is also this http://veganwiki.info/en/Main_Page

A secular letter, to the catholic bishops of Australia, concerning an open letter entitled “Don’t mess with marriage”. The purpose of this response is to rebuttal the claims posed in said letter, and demonstrate why the opposite is true. The letter will be broken down into parts in order to make the letter more digestible and retain structure.

To whom it is concerned,

The Catholic Church has long held un-progressive beliefs, seeming to be caught on the wrong side of history in concern to a wide range of social issues, gay marriage is no exception. Although I disagree with the church on a wide range of issues, this letter will concern itself with the topic of gay marriage from a primarily secular perspective. This of course means the intent of this letter is not to convince its audience of atheism, but rather to shine a sceptical light on the arguments presented.

If you wish to produce a text that avoids fallacious reasoning it is advisable that you do not assume the position of your opponent. It ought to be avoided because it often leads to fighting straw men, or a position that the opponent does not hold, typically one that is easier to rebut.

don't mess with marriage wrote:“Advocates for ‘same-sex marriage’ rarely focus on the real meaning and purpose of marriage. Instead they assume that equal dignity and the principle of nondiscrimination demand the legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages.”

Although the same-sex marriage movement was born out of equal right’s ideologies, and empathies on equal dignity and non-discrimination therefore exist, it is wrong to claim that the issue of the definition of marriage are never addressed. One popular view is that marriage is a social and governmental construct, and as such changes as the views of the persons concerned change. As evidence it is common to site time’s, including biblical times, when marriage was closer to a transaction between families. As historian Stephanie Coontz points out in her article addressing this topic, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04911.html

Stephanie Coontz wrote:“For millennia, marriage was about property and power rather than love. Parents arranged their children's unions to expand the family labor force, gain well-connected in-laws and seal business deals. Sometimes, to consolidate inheritances, parents prevented their younger children from marrying at all […]”

Claiming there is anything objective about the definition of marriage, as a social construct, is absurd. However in regards to marriage as a legal and governmental institution an objective definition is necessary. This does not mean that the legal definition is to be unchanging. As society’s change in their knowledge and opinions, the law will lag behind in adjusting to such changes. It is my position that the law ought to reflect; firstly the objective moral good, defined as maximal well-being of sentient individuals, and secondly the interests of the state’s people.

On this basses I propose the following definition:
Marriage: The affirmation and recognition as a family unit, of two individual human beings, by government.

The argument can be made, and is made later in your letter, that such a definition allows for other taboo relationships to be recognised legally as marriage, such as incest, bestiality, and polygamy. However careful wording of the definition leaves such claims no grounds. The definition requires that the relationship must be approvable, given the taboo and illegal nature of both bestiality (on a state level) and incest (on a federal level). As previously asserted laws should affirm the objective nature of morality as defined as well-being, on these grounds alone the acts should not be affirmed by government, including through the legal institute of marriage.

Polyamory however is not illegal; some suggest that the concept leads to fewer rights for women because of how it is practised in non-western cultures. Swayed by this argument I think legalising polygamy at this point in time would be too hasty, but in a cultural void, I struggle to find a reason to exclude polygamy from marriage. As my claim is that polyamory is morally neutral, the burden of proof is placed on the shoulders of those who claim it’s bad. it cannot be assumed to bad based on out own cultural taboos.

Sex and gender lab on Facebook may also be worth trying.

garrethdsouza wrote:Sex and gender lab on Facebook may also be worth trying.

this may be relevant to contrast homosexuality with incest and bestiality, as it is accepted by society at large, and depending on how its practised, has little to no negative effects on well being. It could also be used in the difference between the two binary genders. I will also change the pronouns from I to we.

A secular letter, to the catholic bishops of Australia, concerning an open letter entitled “Don’t mess with marriage”. The purpose of this response is to rebuttal the claims posed in said letter, and demonstrate why the opposite is true. The letter will be broken down into parts in order to make the letter more digestible and retain structure.

To whom it is concerned,

The Catholic Church has long held un-progressive beliefs, seeming to be caught on the wrong side of history in concern to a wide range of social issues, gay marriage is no exception. Although we disagree with the church on a wide range of issues, this letter will concern itself with the topic of gay marriage from a primarily secular perspective. When necessary to address arguments, we will investigate topics contentious for the catholic church.. This of course means the intent of this letter is not to convince its audience of atheism, but rather to shine a sceptical light on the arguments presented.

If you wish to produce a text that avoids fallacious reasoning it is advisable that you do not assume the position of your opponent. It ought to be avoided because it often leads to fighting straw men, or a position that the opponent does not hold, typically one that is easier to rebut.

don't mess with marriage wrote:“Advocates for ‘same-sex marriage’ rarely focus on the real meaning and purpose of marriage. Instead they assume that equal dignity and the principle of nondiscrimination demand the legal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages.”

Although the same-sex marriage movement was born out of equal right’s ideologies, and an emphasis on equal dignity and non-discrimination therefore exist, it is wrong to claim that the issue of the definition of marriage are never addressed. One popular view is that marriage is a social and governmental construct, and as such changes as the views of the persons concerned change. As evidence it is common to cite past time’s, including biblical times, when marriage was closer to a transaction between families. As historian Stephanie Coontz points out in her article addressing this topic, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04911.html

Stephanie Coontz wrote:“For millennia, marriage was about property and power rather than love. Parents arranged their children's unions to expand the family labor force, gain well-connected in-laws and seal business deals. Sometimes, to consolidate inheritances, parents prevented their younger children from marrying at all […]”

ref http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04911.html

Claiming there is anything objective about the definition of marriage, as a social construct, is absurd. However in regards to marriage as a legal and governmental institution an objective definition is necessary. This does not mean that the legal definition is to be unchanging. As society’s change in their knowledge and opinions, the law will lag behind in adjusting to such changes. It is our position that the law ought to reflect; firstly the objective moral good, defined as maximal well-being of sentient individuals, and secondly the interests of the state’s people.

On this basses we propose the following definition:
Marriage: The affirmation and recognition as a family unit, of (should we remove two from the definition in order to properly address the question of polygamy) two individual human beings, by government.

The argument can be made, and is made later in your letter, that such a definition allows for other taboo relationships to be recognised legally as marriage, such as incest, bestiality, and polygamy. However careful wording of the definition leaves such claims no grounds. The definition requires that the relationship must be approvable, given the taboo and illegal nature of both bestiality (on a state level) and incest (on a federal level), they hold little to no ground in state recognition through marriage. As previously asserted laws should reflect the objective nature of morality as defined as well-being, on these grounds alone the acts should not be affirmed by government, including through the legal institute of marriage.

Polyamory however is not illegal; some suggest that the concept leads to fewer rights for women because of how it is practised in non-western cultures. Swayed by this argument we think legalising polygamy at this point in time would be too hasty, but in a cultural void, I struggle to find a reason to exclude polygamy from marriage. As my claim is that polyamory is morally neutral, the burden of proof is placed on the shoulders of those who claim it’s bad. it cannot be assumed to be bad based on our own cultural taboos.


your statment that

is slippery. No two distinct things are exactly the same, in form or in property's, more often than not in both. The same go's for cases, or situations. Things that make situations distinct can be means for treating them differently however the differences are more often than not irrelevant to the situation, like race, age, names and gender. We are aware that this is likely not a point of contention, but in adhering to strict logical principles one must take care to make sure exactly the right terms are used in exactly the right places. A more appropriate statement would read "We must treat cases that are the same in all relevant way's alike, and cases that are different in relevant ways differently."

You waste no time in pointing out what the differences are, we will now examine, if they are legitimate differences, if they are relevant to the definition of marriage, and if marriage between same sex couples can be justified between gay couples despite such differences.

pastoral letter wrote:Marriage [...] is grounded on a total commitment: bodily and spiritual, sexual and reproductive, permanent and exclusive.

I personally am not comfortable writing about spirituality for reasons I have addressed in other topics. Perhaps it is best for someone else to cover that ground.
It is a long held dogma of the catholic church that sex should only happen in wedlock with the purpose of reproduction. Given the culture that gave rise to the religion, a factor that is often important when addressing biblical interpretation, this dogmas origin is understandable. The thing is, cultures change. It is therefore important to let go of old dogmas that arise from outdated cultures. The things that gave rise to these views are threefold; STI transmission's, childbirth, and raising of children. With the invention of various contraceptives these things have become less important to modern society (we should provide statistics regarding STD transmission rates, and child birth rates with various forms of contraceptives). If childbirth is a non-possibility, than it is hardly fair to count it as relevant to a situation. When a principle is applied to clarify a situation, and aspects of the principle are shown to be irrelevant, instead of ignoring the principle entirely we appeal to it while ignoring that which is irrelevant. In this sense you can hold that childbirth is important to the definition of marriage, but is irrelevant to marriages of same sex couples. The topic of same sex couples raising children will be investigated in depth later in this letter.

Good job so far! I'd help out but I'm currently really busy. Just wanted to drop a note to say I'm not deliberately ignoring this or anything.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I'd help out but I'm currently really busy.

I just hope you're around when we start doing the more science based stuff.

I'm not happy with how the letter has came out so far. In restarting I will analyse the letter, and we will chose the most important things to latch onto and attack.

Separation of church and bigotry
Regarding the first section of the letter entitled "Respect for all"
In this section the author(s) try to separate themselves from bigoted homophobia. They quote writings by higher ups in the church the atheist's here may or may not be familiar with.

The Catholic tradition teaches that every human being is a unique and irreplaceable person, created in the image of God and loved by Him.

The non referenced "teaching" seems to be forwarding the first of the 10 social justice teachings of the catholic church. Quoted below, and available here http://www.caritas.org.au/about/catholi ... ing-values

Dignity of the human person

Every human being is created in the image and likeness of God and therefore has inherent dignity. No human being should have their dignity or freedom compromised.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

However the second quote should be of interest to us.

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

The quote is correctly referenced as. The Catechism of the Catholic Church [2358]. I don't know how confident I would be to say it is the authors intent, but the quote is kinda polishing a turd, when understood in context. Its sad when an organisation needs to quote mine there own works just to not come off as bigoted, and I think we should clarify the position of the document.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What even is 'like'?
Regarding the section of the letter entitled "Marriage equality & discrimination"
This section of the letter argues an agreeable, but easily misunderstood, point. The same point that Peter Singer makes towards the start of "animal liberation". Except he go's out of his way to make sure he is understood, unlike this letter.

Marriage equality & discrimination wrote: We must treat like cases alike and different cases differently

Peter Singer - 'animal liberation - 3rd edition' wrote:There are many [...] obvious ways in which men and women resemble each other closely [...] men and women are similar beings and should have similar rights. [...] There are obviously important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have. Recognizing this evident fact, however, is no barrier to the case for extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals.

Essentially, "relevant differences in cases give rise to relevant differences in treatment"

I'm sure everyone has heard this case in one form or another, a family friend once told me its like inviting coffee drinkers to a tea party. Its only difficult to rebuttal because its difficult to identify what point of so posed difference they are trying to make. Maybe we should use formal logic in order to point out that they have not actually brought up a relevant difference. They bring up there so posed difference in the next part, that gay couples cannot produce children, I do not think we can rightly call it relevant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates for ‘same-sex marriage’ rarely focus on the real meaning and purpose of marriage

Would it to be fair to call this the "no true" fallacy? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following quote from the letter is misleading.

Indeed, in this pastoral letter we argue that what is unjust – gravely unjust – is:

It would be better phrased

Indeed, in this pastoral letter we argue or briefly assert that what is unjust – gravely unjust – is:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

feel free to contribute to this. http://www.sydneycatholic.org/pdf/DMM-booklet_web.pdf