Arcadia Power
Remove Ads

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Same sex marriage should be treating as any other marriage.
#1
And, you can also go further to argue whether or not marriage should be exclusive to TWO people, or if polyamorous marriages should be allowed.
Reply
#2
As Thoreau:

Agree.
The state officiates marriage generally, therefore, any restrictions put on it would be unnecessary. If the state were to get rid of all restrictions on marriage, it would mean an increase in the quality of life of a large percentage of the population. This is a very clear indication of something being wrong with the law. There is no reason that people who would like to marry the same sex (or multiple people at once) should have to conform to the opinion of others. If these people are not getting married, they should not have a say in the marriage. And, for a final point, same-sex marriage causes no harm to anyone.
Reply
#3
(04-06-2020, 05:27 PM)ZoëThoreau Wrote: As Thoreau:

Agree.
The state officiates marriage generally, therefore, any restrictions put on it would be unnecessary. If the state were to get rid of all restrictions on marriage, it would mean an increase in the quality of life of a large percentage of the population. This is a very clear indication of something being wrong with the law. There is no reason that people who would like to marry the same sex (or multiple people at once) should have to conform to the opinion of others. If these people are not getting married, they should not have a say in the marriage. And, for a final point, same-sex marriage causes no harm to anyone.

Opinion: John Stuart Mill
Mill would agree that same sex marriage should be treated as any other marriage. “But to speak only of actions done from the motive of duty, and in direct obedience to principle: it is a misapprehension of the utilitarian mode of though, to conceive it as implying that people should fix their minds upon so wide a generality as the world, or society at large” (1988:211). One of the many things that Mill said about how people need to stand by their own thoughts rather than doing something out of duty. The duty of having a heterosexual relationship should not be considered if that is not what you are attracted too. We need to be selfish enough to be able to pursue what we want whether that is same sex marriage or heterosexual marriage. There should be no difference between the two, the only thing that should stop marriage is if they are not receiving happiness but rather a pain in the said relationship no matter who is involved. A direct quote would be; 
"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (1988:203). We need to ensure that our life is pain-free and that is the only thing that matters not which gender is marrying which. 
Reply
#4
As Rand: Agree

Rand would argue that anyone should be able to do what they want if it makes them happy. She believes in rational self-interest, therefore if marrying someone of the same sex makes you happy it should be treated the same way as any other marriage. It must benefit you, in the end, to be considered good. Rand would support polygamy as well because if the outcome is happiness, it is fine. She also thinks we shouldn't worry about other people so other people's opinions and thoughts do not matter when it comes to our happiness. Rand would agree that same-sex marriages should be as equal as any other marriage if it makes the couple happy and has a good end.
Reply
#5
(04-09-2020, 02:51 AM)ArianaRand Wrote: As Rand: Agree

Rand would argue that anyone should be able to do what they want if it makes them happy. She believes in rational self-interest, therefore if marrying someone of the same sex makes you happy it should be treated the same way as any other marriage. It must benefit you, in the end, to be considered good. Rand would support polygamy as well because if the outcome is happiness, it is fine. She also thinks we shouldn't worry about other people so other people's opinions and thoughts do not matter when it comes to our happiness. Rand would agree that same-sex marriages should be as equal as any other marriage if it makes the couple happy and has a good end.
In Freud's writing, is it evident that he believed there was nothing wrong with homosexuality as he did not consider it a mental illness. "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness." (1935 letter). This implies that it should be considered as no different than a heterosexual relationship (as it is only a preference). Despite Rand and Freud having the same conclusion (same-sex marriage should be treated like any other marriage), I believe the way they came to that conclusion is very different. Rand focuses on what brings joy, whereas Freud focuses on reason. Although Rant's self-interest is not blind, it is read as though a 'slightly thought through impulse.' In contrast, Freud's views understand homosexuality as not an option to happiness but rather a necessity in the life drive.
Reply
#6
Opinion : Hume

Much like all the other philosophers, Hume would argue that same sex marriage should be treated like any other type of marriage. Hume believes we allow sentiment to affect our morals. “But after every circumstance, every relation is known, the understanding has no further room to operate, nor any object on which it could employ itself. The approbation or blame which then ensues, cannot be the work of the judgement, but of the heart; and is not a speculative proposition or affirmation, but an active feeling or sentiment” (170-1). Although individuals might have different sentiments towards homosexuality (focusing on different facts of the matter : example, the sex rather then the actual marriage). Hume believes we need to have right-minded people listen to all the facts, then make decision to create rules surrounding the subject. Although Hume's theories age with time... in a modern day setting, Hume's theories are accepted to acknowledge same sex marriage as equal to that of a heterosexual marriage through modern day beliefs and general acceptance of members of the LGBT community.
Reply
#7
(Mill)

Agree.

Mill would be in favor of Gay marriage. His entire philosophy was based on achieving the most pleasure in life and individualism. He would argue that if both people getting married were happy then they should be allowed to get married however they want.
Reply
#8
Opinion: Kant

I think that Kant's ethical theories would be okay with same-sex marriage except for his argument that we should act in a way that would be good if the principle of our actions became a universal law. I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law. Here now, it is simple conformity to law in general, without assuming any particular law is applicable to certain actions, that serves the will as its principle, and must so serve it if duty is not to be a vain delusion and a chimerical notion¨ (188). He is saying that good can be determined if the act would still be acceptable if everyone were to share the same principle that lies behind the action and also doing the action. So in regards to same-sex marriage, I guess he would say if everyone were to do so life on earth would come to a hault if no one reproduced with the other sex.
Reply
#9
(04-14-2020, 11:06 PM)EmmaKant Wrote: Opinion: Kant

I think that Kant's ethical theories would be okay with same-sex marriage except for his argument that we should act in a way that would be good if the principle of our actions became a universal law. I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law. Here now, it is simple conformity to law in general, without assuming any particular law is applicable to certain actions, that serves the will as its principle, and must so serve it if duty is not to be a vain delusion and a chimerical notion¨ (188). He is saying that good can be determined if the act would still be acceptable if everyone were to share the same principle that lies behind the action and also doing the action. So in regards to same-sex marriage, I guess he would say if everyone were to do so life on earth would come to a hault if no one reproduced with the other sex.
Kant's opinion:

Based off of my readings, and to go off of this idea of Kant not agreeing with same-sex marriage being a moral act that could be willed to be universal law due to the reproduction of life halting, Kant would have to also agree that every two people who get married have the moral obligation to reproduce. If he believes that, then he would be contradicting his other statement of that human life cannot be a means to an end.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: