I have met and hung out a few times with Dr. John Corvino, philosophist and author of What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality? and consider him a friend.
I am especially impressed with the way that he juxtaposes moral arguments that are bastions of gay rights nay-sayers with their ultimate philosophical argument to dilute their strength. For instance, he has the best argument against the "slippery slope" justification for calling homosexuality immoral: that is, "once we allow homosexuality, we'll have to allow polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia ..."
John breaks it down to three challenges. First, have the arguer explaing why bestiality, polygamy, and necrophilia are wrong. Then, have them explain why homosexuality is wrong. Then, use their own arguments against them.
For instance, a lot of people use the bible (no, I will never capitalize it again) as carte blanche justification for why homosexuality is immoral. Specifically those pesky verses in Romans and Leviticus.
Does the bible ban polygamy? Oh ... whoops ... nope ... it does not... in fact, how many wives did so-and-so have?
You will have them running in moral circles. Of course, the bible does outright ban bestiality, but it doesn't make them equivalent to homosexuality.
More on this argument can be found a http://www.johncorvino.com/ ... where you can truly find way to break down the moral objections of almost anyone in their views about homosexuality.
It's really hard to defend something you have no good reasoning for. Challenging the moral equivalency merit is usually all it takes for a gay rights foe to argue themselves into a corner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment