What would be a philosopher's view on gay marriage?

Would one simply say that every man (and woman) are entitled to their own opinions and choices?





Or would one say that it goes against morals?





Personally, I don't really know, my views on a lot of things have been ';warped';, because of my constantly changing views.What would be a philosopher's view on gay marriage?
Well because many of the great philosophers were alive in the ';golden age'; of Greece (and we all know their view on homosexuality) I think they would be fine with it.What would be a philosopher's view on gay marriage?
as a Christian and a libertarian who hates control and fascism and inequality, I can surely see both sides.





religion and government should not mix. Political scenes are turning my faith into a hotbed or power-hungry debates and hatred, instead of love and forgiveness, and unconditional positive regard for others. So here is the best solution I've ever heard: abolish marriage completely, for everybody. Remove it's legal standing. It's a religious institution anyway. Allow every citizen the same rights under a Civil Union, straight and gay alike. The rights and priviledges for marriage now could be transfered to the Civil Union and that should be the document in the US. Those who want to get ';married'; can acquire a certificate at a church ceremony that is not legally recognized. This way, Christians and Muslims will not see their sacred ceremony as defiled and all will be equal in this country. Pleases everybody! There are churches that will marry gay people. And the majority of churches will declare them married by a false church, and the marriage invalid. The church should also be happy to see atheist couples quit acting like they need a pastor to be joined. But the point is that it ceases to be America's problem. It becomes the church's. And the church has been disagreeing on this anyway, why not leave it all to it? I don't want Christians to be known for winning this battle in the political world. We have others to fight that are more important, like loving people and ending poverty and stuff.


It may be possible that the powers that be are trying to keep us distracted with this issue that so polarizes, while when we are not looking, they steal our money, start wars, and do other stuff behind our backs. It's time to focus on our huge bullying government, rather than constantly blather on about abortion and gay marriage. Sure, they are important, but there is little we can do about them.
Pure, reciprocal love is exactly that and it knows no specifics.


Luckily, we're living in a society, apart from religious zelots


and the myopic, that tolerates rather than judges. The things


that are morally wrong involve murder, rape, and incest,


not love. One day this country will drop it's ridiculous


Puritanical roots and re-adapt to the changing societal


landscape.
What can I say, but that I'm totally overwhelmed by [I Am Jack's Wasted Life].


A realistic solution! The entire answer is excellent, but I focused on: ';Remove its legal standing. It's a religious institution anyway.';


Therein lies the problem, %26amp; the divisiveness.


We can go all around the barn ';trying'; to get in the door; how refreshing to see someone who knows how to SOLVE it.
...Are philosophers some other species? Am I unaware that philosophy is anything but recognizing the shadows on the cave wall?





Philosophy turned into a shouting match as soon as cult of belief around one or another emerged. But you must remember the story of the cave. The power to use our spirit and out minds to the level of seeing that this life as we know it are but a phenomena of shadow a shade that is something we are assigning it.. and trying to spread the ideas... the realization that we are staring at the shade... not the cause of our humanity.





Homosexuality is an aberrant idea that you can label this or that kind of apatite. All apatite's enjoyed or not shined or embraced are just that... An apatite can you shun the man from the tropical and poor climate for eating pigs feet or can you (if you like pigs feet) fault the man for enjoying veil?








And here we are staring at civil union. What fool needs a personal ceremony to be recognised by the ';masters'; of our elected or unelected government what tyranny governs the heart of man and tells him it is not offical or recognised by law.





What law governs the heart what law is written int he sky and what law is not broken by the human heart.





That is a philosphers view.
I don't Know What ';Philosophers'; Would Say, but I Say: ';Marriage In Everything but the Word';.
Well, if you're thinking someone like Socrates, he'd be fine with it.


But if it were someone like Karl Marx, he wouldn't even dare utter the word.
Your constantly changing views would correspond very well with a philosophical view of gay marriage. In Philosophy's Golden Age, when homosexuality was accepted the institution of marriage was firmly held as an heterosexual union, Socrates may have loved Phaedo, but Xanthippe was his wife. Alexander never married Haepheston. The legal basis of a gay union is requisite as a moral and equitable premise in our society where property and benefits are attached. Why should alienated family have rights greater than those enjoyed by the person one loves and with whom the person's life and obligations are shared? Why should children of gay parents be discriminated against because of their parents' orientation and natural alliances? It is difficult, to say the least, to come up with anything like an uniform view and understanding of the bases and composition of marriage in a society which holds a view of heterosexual monogamy, but operates with something more like serial polygamy. Historically societies have practised polygamy and polyandry, both prohibited now by law. Extramarital affairs came under different sanctions, bastards could either be acknowledged or disinherited. Can we easily define marriage? If we hold it to moral standards, how are those determined? Is it a matter of choice or duress? A philosopher would hold those to be mutually exclusive, yet our culture exercises nothing less than duress in regard to the most intimate relationship, that of marriage by dictating one's choice of marital partner.





[One would either have to be blind, or at the very least terribly myopic not to notice that gay people have children too. They have a right to a family, with parents who love them. There are heterosexual marriages that fall apart when one or both partners recognise an orientation not conducive to such an union. This is not a matter of fault or choice, it is often arrived at through much painful soul-searching. Mistaken identity constitutes a dire impediment to marriage, a canonical justification for annulment. The strength of the lies we enforce in our understandings of sexuality can mean one is even mistaken as to one's own identity. Part of human sexuality also has genetic components, where one or more child shares one parent's sexual orientation or the other. Acceptance and affirmation are crucial to healthy development, whatever the orientation of any or all parties. Former partners can be mutually supportive, even if they find greater fulfilment in new and appropriate relationships. God only knows, there are already countless yours, mine, and ours households already. Let's do away with the idea that ';coming out'; means somebody died. It's time for more maturity. That's a moral judgement.]





My ideas of what is moral are rather simple, that which contributes to human freedom and well-being, respecting nature and life. Simple is not simplistic. Nature and life both show a wide diversity. Well-being is something not always easy to determine, neither is freedom, both are relative to the conditions and capacities of the individual. It cannot be something which is maintained on the basis of force, draconian law. Respect of each and every person is the prime requisite of my standard of morals. I treat that as absolute, not relative or negotiable. It is not in the property of any government or external authority either to grant or deny, but intrinsic and inalienable. It's what Thomas Jefferson spoke of when he listed ';Life, Liberty. and the Pursuit of Happiness';.





[My good friend Archbishop Ted Scott said it well in his last public statement (in response to the Pope's call to unite against gay civil unions) on December 31, 2003, ';I have become convinced that it is not anti-family to embrace non-traditional families. In so concluding I asked myself many questions. People in non-traditional families have often been marginalized because they are different. Would it not be better to accept them into the mainstream of society and set them free to make a much fuller contribution to the human community? Instead of imposing hardship, would we not be treating others as we would like to be treated?';]





[If homosexuality is ';unnatural'; then my geese and ducks all run around the yard engaging in unnatural behaviour, since mounting, mating , and submission is one of their main ways of establishing dominance in the flock, irrespective of gender. Young roosters also mate with every scrap of paper and stray leaf. People who engage in natural theology should take more time actually observing nature. While the expression of one's sexuality may be a matter of appetite, one's basic orientation is anything but. It's not a matter of saying ';Today I like chocolate, tomorrow I'll try vanilla. I woke up one morning and decided I'd be homosexual, maybe I'll change next week.'; The mere idea is asinine, just try changing your own orientation and see how you do.]





[I did my degrees in philosophy rather than psychology. I would not agree with my friend Psychic Cat regarding the non-subjective nature of logical reasoning. He has perhaps not questioned some of his presuppositions, but then I'm an hermeneutic phenomenologist rather than a logical positivist. Classical philosophy is chock full of subjectivity.]





[Rather than going against morals, there is a strong moral base for gay marriage. That base is the same one there is for heterosexual marriage. It is not a religious institution, not all marriages are sacramental unions, but a marriage is a marriage nonetheless and forces recognition by its sheer existence whatever any church might say. Marriages existed long before any religion, and are recognised by all religions the world over. There are three specific reasons for marriage: 1. the mutual love support and fellowship offered in both prosperity and adversity, 2. the care and nurture of children within that union, and 3. the safeguarding of society, prevention of fornication. People are social, it is not good for one to be alone. Those who have committed long term relationships live longer, fuller lives with more resources for the difficulties each person inevitably faces. No-one understands a gay person better than another gay person. The intimacy of marriage provides a deeper basis for understanding and a true friendship that's much more than romantic love. The care and nurture of children may seem oxymoronic in a gay marriage. This is not so. I know many gay marriages with large happy families, and not a few with the trials and tribulations of dealing with troublesome adolescents. The thing is that marriages form a more stable base and better role models than on again, off again relationships. A marriage becomes a means of sharing the load with others in like conditions, and when worst comes to worst, two dads or two moms is better than one, providing both reinforcement and relief. The third thing is a critical piece, the reduction of promiscuity and risk. When one has a reliable and compatible sexual partner there is far less need or temptation to engage in risky , and possibly even illegal, behaviour. It doesn't say that affairs and unfaithfulness never happens. We don't live in a fairy tale word, but the incidence is greatly reduced. There's always someone to come home to, and a mutual relationship to which each is answerable. These are strong moral reasons. Gay marriages don't go against morals, they are moral.]
Which philosopher?





Many ancient philosophers were Greek. At that time homosexuality was not considered wrong or illegal it was just part of life. SO I think it would depend on who you ask and what time period their from?
It would entirely depend on that particular philosopher's idea about the topic. It's not like there is a common position that all philosophers take. If there were, they would not be useful... not that they really are anyway.
I think a philosopher is acutely aware of ';morals'; and the subjective nature thereof. Since many philosophers separate their opinions from religion and God, they may be likely to say that people are entitled to their own feelings and choices -- but that the nature of what constitutes a ';marriage'; must also be argued.
I think a spiritual person - a philosopher perhaps - would say that civil marriage is a concept confined to the needs of humanity (government and civility), and civil marriage is not directly related to the spirit. True spiritual marriage transcends human needs - financial, sexual and otherwise. Entering into any type of marriage depends upon the source of one's motivation, and that core motivation many times will determine the success of the marriage.





I think a proper marriage in spiritual terms is forged upon the principles of life, faith, hope and love.





I also think that morality refers to conditions that support life, faith, hope and love. Gay marriage does not support life, like procreation does for hetersexuals However, it can support the other concepts for faith hope and love.





Of course everyone is entitled to choice. Sometimes however, choices in the United States, violate the law. Gay marriage is not recognized in most, if not all, places in the U.S. I think the issue surrounding formal recognition of gay marriage relates to people having a difficult time distinquishing civil marriage, which is legally binding, and spiritual marriage. Also, civil marriage requires society subsidize a couple's efforts to support a family. Society is able to discern a clear return on their investment for helping families produce more new productive members.





Hope this helps.
doesn't it depend which philosopher you ask?
Straight philosopher, or gay philosopher?


NY democrat philosopher, or Brazilian gold mine town philosopher? Muslim or Buddhist philosopher?


If Buddhist, then Zen, or SGI philosopher?
that depends on the philosophers views, doesn't it?
First, philosophers have many ';views';--oxymoron as that seems to me, as philosophy means but one thing to me: Logical reasoning, %26amp; subjectivity can never be logical.


Second, homosexuality isn't an opinion, or a choice. People are born homosexuals just as heterosexuals are. (You could research this, but would come up with varied ';opinions,'; %26amp; hopefully some FACTS.)


Do animals %26amp; insects choose to be homosexual? Well, some simply ARE.


Third, whose morals? Morals based on what?


If you're really interested, %26amp; your views are constantly changing, you might like to explore further.
Most people choose a side because of their religious views. Although I dont exactly think its the right thing to do I support and respect their descision even if I am a baptist. Philosophers are all about views and discussing them. Philosophers are not all going to have the same views which is why we actually have philosophy. If everyone had the same view their would be no questions to ask. You would already know the answer.
Essential to the question is the definition of marriage. Does it exclude homosexual marriages? What is right morally? Is homosexuality really so bad? As long as the views of others are not forced upon the individual, then what does it matter if gays are married?





It would seem that views would be ';warped'; if these views were so rigid that there was no room for other opinion and difference. There is nothing wrong with change. It is inherent. Changing views are good as long as they are changing for the better and becoming more tolerant of differences.
to each their own.