E
EasterJoy
Guest
You can say, “Well, I don’t think that the Church fears homosexuals, but let us say for argument’s sake that the Church is full of people who are afraid of homosexuality, and that they’re the primary ones behind these statements. I’ll spot you the homophobia, and let’s play the game out.”
You can then point out that the emotional investment people have in the question doesn’t change the validity of the argument for or against it. It is worth being aware of irrational feelings, but having them doesn’t make you incapable of making a rational decision.
For instance, I might have an irrational fear of murderers. Can’t stand to be around prisons. In fact, I won’t live within 100 miles of one. As we know, some people who, whether by birth or accident of upbringing or both, are psychopathic and violent, too. Left to do as they wish, they are going to kill someone.
It is obvious that neither of these facts has the least thing to do with whether or not killing another human being should be legally permissible. The fearful person should not be automatically disqualified from voting on matters concerning murder, even if their fears reflect no real danger that they personally face, nor should the fact that murders have happened since time immemorial change the morality of the behavior. Even if a psychosis alters culpability for a particular person committing a particular action, it does not alter the moral acceptability of the action itself.
So then you turn to the homosexuality.
“It is natural. Ten percent of the population is homosexual.” What does that have to do with how any particular person’s homosexuality should be handled? Let us say that I am depressed. Is it not OK to commit suicide, until I find that 10% of the population is suicidal? Of course not! The act itself has an intrinsic effect which makes it moral or immoral, quite apart from demographics.
And so on. There is almost no argument in this debate that cannot find a parallel in which it does not hold water, outside the question of the intrinsic value of the action itself. Furthermore, even secular society has reserved the right to encourage some actions and discourage others, from home ownership to drug use and distribution to consumer spending to the speed at which one elects to drive.
Surely we Christians do not concede the right to participate in that process by the fact that we base our decisions on faith and reason, and not on fashion or whatever other random factors anyone else is allowed to use. That we choose to have religious reasons for our opinions is not the same as forcing anyone else to be religious!
The other question that begs is why people pursuing laws concerning homosexual unions refuse to open them up to any adults who cannot marry, if they are really, as they say, only acting in the interest of all the “rights” that everyone needs but only the “marrieds” get. If homosexuals need these “rights”, then why not two old sisters? Because this battle really isn’t about human rights. It is about wanting homosexuality to be put on par with heterosexuality. If you let the two old ladies in, then whatever-you-call-it so clearly isn’t marriage that it isn’t good enough.
Nobody has outlawed two homosexuals getting up in white gowns and making promises. Many people have offered to open the “rights” issue beyond just the “marrieds”. The responses of those pursuing homosexual marriage show just what kind of ax they’re grinding.
This debate is about getting society to put a blessing on a particular sexual behavior. To that, they have no right, and whether we fear it or welcome it doesn’t change that.
You can then point out that the emotional investment people have in the question doesn’t change the validity of the argument for or against it. It is worth being aware of irrational feelings, but having them doesn’t make you incapable of making a rational decision.
For instance, I might have an irrational fear of murderers. Can’t stand to be around prisons. In fact, I won’t live within 100 miles of one. As we know, some people who, whether by birth or accident of upbringing or both, are psychopathic and violent, too. Left to do as they wish, they are going to kill someone.
It is obvious that neither of these facts has the least thing to do with whether or not killing another human being should be legally permissible. The fearful person should not be automatically disqualified from voting on matters concerning murder, even if their fears reflect no real danger that they personally face, nor should the fact that murders have happened since time immemorial change the morality of the behavior. Even if a psychosis alters culpability for a particular person committing a particular action, it does not alter the moral acceptability of the action itself.
So then you turn to the homosexuality.
“It is natural. Ten percent of the population is homosexual.” What does that have to do with how any particular person’s homosexuality should be handled? Let us say that I am depressed. Is it not OK to commit suicide, until I find that 10% of the population is suicidal? Of course not! The act itself has an intrinsic effect which makes it moral or immoral, quite apart from demographics.
And so on. There is almost no argument in this debate that cannot find a parallel in which it does not hold water, outside the question of the intrinsic value of the action itself. Furthermore, even secular society has reserved the right to encourage some actions and discourage others, from home ownership to drug use and distribution to consumer spending to the speed at which one elects to drive.
Surely we Christians do not concede the right to participate in that process by the fact that we base our decisions on faith and reason, and not on fashion or whatever other random factors anyone else is allowed to use. That we choose to have religious reasons for our opinions is not the same as forcing anyone else to be religious!
The other question that begs is why people pursuing laws concerning homosexual unions refuse to open them up to any adults who cannot marry, if they are really, as they say, only acting in the interest of all the “rights” that everyone needs but only the “marrieds” get. If homosexuals need these “rights”, then why not two old sisters? Because this battle really isn’t about human rights. It is about wanting homosexuality to be put on par with heterosexuality. If you let the two old ladies in, then whatever-you-call-it so clearly isn’t marriage that it isn’t good enough.
Nobody has outlawed two homosexuals getting up in white gowns and making promises. Many people have offered to open the “rights” issue beyond just the “marrieds”. The responses of those pursuing homosexual marriage show just what kind of ax they’re grinding.
This debate is about getting society to put a blessing on a particular sexual behavior. To that, they have no right, and whether we fear it or welcome it doesn’t change that.
