Gay marriage rebuttal needed

[upbeatjonm]

I have recently been on another blog, trying to argue against gay marriage. The proponent was pretty aggressive in his views.

the one question he had, for which I am seeking the best answer is; “how is having gay marriage passed into law going to hurt your marriage?” In other words, he is insinuating that since I will not be personally harmed in any way, why should I stand in the way.

Thanks for your help in answering this the best way.

 

[bingbang]

I have recently been on another blog, trying to argue against gay marriage. The proponent was pretty aggressive in his views.

the one question he had, for which I am seeking the best answer is; “how is having gay marriage passed into law going to hurt your marriage?” In other words, he is insinuating that since I will not be personally harmed in any way, why should I stand in the way.

Thanks for your help in answering this the best way.

It won’t hurt marriage. All you can come up with is something going back to Christianity which is something he probably doesn’t believe in.

Basically all you can do is make really bad arguments. Like “how will I explain to my kids that two men are married.” Well you are probably going to have to tell them that they are together romantically anyway, so explaining that and explaining marriage isn’t too much different.

Basically he got you. There is no good argument against his. All you can do is appeal to a belief system that this person does not follow.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It won’t hurt marriage. All you can come up with is something going back to Christianity which is something he probably doesn’t believe in.

Basically all you can do is make really bad arguments. Like “how will I explain to my kids that two men are married.” Well you are probably going to have to tell them that they are together romantically anyway, so explaining that and explaining marriage isn’t too much different.

Basically he got you. There is no good argument against his. All you can do is appeal to a belief system that this person does not follow.

Baloney.

Truth is not dependent on majority vote. "Belief system’ is a modern ‘label’ and an attempt to try to box concepts in so that they can be dismissed instead of discussed.

I think your own reaction (where you ASSUME that the only possible answer is itself impossible) points that you’ve taken your OWN belief system and given it authority. . .while you’re trying to show that any who disagree with you are doing that, but for them it’s somehow wrong. . .

 

[john_ennis]

The strongest argument against so-called gay marriage is not that it will harm some particular existing marriage (or even any existing marriages at all).

A primary argument, I think, is that by changing the concept of what marriage is–and is for–we will hurt families and children in the future. Our society’s valuation of marriage as being linked, by definition, to the creation and rearing of new generations of citizens–children–will be terribly weakened.

More than it already is.

That’s a social argument. From your and my standpoint as Christians, there’s the additional recognition that further normalizing homosexual relations makes that sin more acceptable to our society overall, and to our children, and future children.

But back to that first argument. The more that marriage is seen to be mainly a relationship in which sexual acts are practiced, the more it is wrongly understood to be means of getting rather than giving. The Catholic understanding that marriage is ordered toward procreation as well as self-giving erotic love, mirrors the love of God, a creative, self-giving love.

Any other type of “marriage” backs away from the selfless aspect of real marriage, and turns it into a selfish pursuit.

John

 

[bingbang]

A primary argument, I think, is that by changing the concept of what marriage is–and is for–we will hurt families and children in the future. Our society’s valuation of marriage as being linked, by definition, to the creation and rearing of new generations of citizens–children–will be terribly weakened.

This is an assumption based on absolutely nothing. Show me something that even suggests that this will happen.

 

[bingbang]

Baloney.

Truth is not dependent on majority vote. "Belief system’ is a modern ‘label’ and an attempt to try to box concepts in so that they can be dismissed instead of discussed.

I think your own reaction (where you ASSUME that the only possible answer is itself impossible) points that you’ve taken your OWN belief system and given it authority. . .while you’re trying to show that any who disagree with you are doing that, but for them it’s somehow wrong. . .

So give him a proper rebuttal.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

At second-hand? Right now, the OP has assumed that the person who asked the question did so from the point of view that an action which had no ‘perceived’ personal harm to one party should be permitted because it ‘did not harm the party’ and thus the party had no right to question the action. Correct?

But is that really what the original questioner thinks? Is it only PART of what he thinks?

Is the premise valid? Is something that does no personal harm (and what is the definition of that, can something harm me physically and not emotionally/spiritually, or vice versa?) thereby morally neutral or morally good? Does it only hold good from individual to individual? What if there are legal questions as well?

What exactly is marriage? What is its legal definition? Don’t several states have DOMA acts? If marriage is to be reworded legally, how would it be done?

The way the questioner is putting the OP ‘on the defensive’ by trying to play a martry and simplistic, “It doesn’t hurt YOU so why argue” makes it nearly impossible for the person protesting, because it is NOT simply about whether something causes ‘personal harm’. Since the whole situation isn’t out there completely, trying to ‘rebut’ is going to be incomplete UNTIL the whole situation is seen correctly. . by the original questioner.

 

[bingbang]

At second-hand? Right now, the OP has assumed that the person who asked the question did so from the point of view that an action which had no ‘perceived’ personal harm to one party should be permitted because it ‘did not harm the party’ and thus the party had no right to question the action. Correct?

But is that really what the original questioner thinks? Is it only PART of what he thinks?

Is the premise valid? Is something that does no personal harm (and what is the definition of that, can something harm me physically and not emotionally/spiritually, or vice versa?) thereby morally neutral or morally good? Does it only hold good from individual to individual? What if there are legal questions as well?

What exactly is marriage? What is its legal definition? Don’t several states have DOMA acts? If marriage is to be reworded legally, how would it be done?

The way the questioner is putting the OP ‘on the defensive’ by trying to play a martry and simplistic, “It doesn’t hurt YOU so why argue” makes it nearly impossible for the person protesting, because it is NOT simply about whether something causes ‘personal harm’. Since the whole situation isn’t out there completely, trying to ‘rebut’ is going to be incomplete UNTIL the whole situation is seen correctly. . by the original questioner.

Does gay marriage harm anyone?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Does gay marriage harm anyone?

What do you understand gay marriage to involve? What do you understand marriage to be? What do you consider harm?

 

[john_ennis]

This is an assumption based on absolutely nothing. Show me something that even suggests that this will happen.

Look, I’m not trying to win an argument, but examine what I think to be true. Naturally, our differing persectives will lead us to challenge each other’s assumptions. Try not to be angry, but assume good will on all our parts.

Here’s a reason: male “married” couples tend to have multiple partners at a rate far beyond heterosexual married couples. It’s not unreasonable to hold that such an attitude regarding the self-denying aspect of marriage is deficient.

It’s very understandable–and I believe compassionate–to worry that a greater hesitance *to deny oneself * could mean a dimished ability to raise children lovingly.

It almost certainly means a less stable “marriage.”

Peace.
John

 

[Garyjohn2]

I don’t know if it will hurt current marriages in any concrete specific way. It will hurt marriages of the future though. Our society is built upon certain assumptions…mores…legal “givens”. Do you know what I mean? To errode these, the foundation for our culture, national, and legal system, would be a gross mistake.

To elaborate, lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Homosexual acts are wrong. Cheating on a spouse is wrong. Why are these things wrong? Who has defined them, and who says we can’t re-define them? What if we just said forget it and say that nothing is wrong? The answer is that we would have a supremely disordered society that, over generations, would not hold together.

You have to draw the line somewhere, and make a defininition of what is wrong, what is right, and stick to it. If marriage is not between one man and one woman, then what is it? Between one person and one person, perhaps. But why one? Why a person? Who made these rules? I realize this is a “slippery slope” argument that some people will dismiss out of hand…but its the truth. If one part is not sacred, not written in stone, why should the other parts be? You have to draw the line, and define.

It’s not for our benefit, because we’ll be dead. The future of our culture and society must have a firm foundation to stand on, if it is to last. You’ve heard it said, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” What happens to a house removed from its foundation?

And that’s my purely secular explanation of how I see things.

 

[bingbang]

Look, I’m not trying to win an argument, but examine what I think to be true. Naturally, our differing persectives will lead us to challenge each other’s assumptions. Try not to be angry, but assume good will on all our parts.

Here’s a reason: male “married” couples tend to have multiple partners at a rate far beyond heterosexual married couples. It’s not unreasonable to hold that such an attitude regarding the self-denying aspect of marriage is deficient.

It’s very understandable–and I believe compassionate–to worry that a greater hesitance *to deny oneself * could mean a dimished ability to raise children lovingly.

It almost certainly means a less stable “marriage.”

Peace.
John

Do you have a study that states that? Also I think that you can’t really compare because those male couples are not married. If you were to compare those male couples with anyone it should be long term heterosexual cohabitants that are not married either.

 

[bingbang]

I don’t know if it will hurt current marriages in any concrete specific way. It will hurt marriages of the future though. Our society is built upon certain assumptions…mores…legal “givens”. Do you know what I mean? To errode these, the foundation for our culture, national, and legal system, would be a gross mistake.

To elaborate, lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Homosexual acts are wrong. Cheating on a spouse is wrong. Why are these things wrong? Who has defined them, and who says we can’t re-define them? What if we just said forget it and say that nothing is wrong? The answer is that we would have a supremely disordered society that, over generations, would not hold together.

You have to draw the line somewhere, and make a defininition of what is wrong, what is right, and stick to it. If marriage is not between one man and one woman, then what is it? Between one person and one person, perhaps. But why one? Why a person? Who made these rules? I realize this is a “slippery slope” argument that some people will dismiss out of hand…but its the truth. If one part is not sacred, not written in stone, why should the other parts be? You have to draw the line, and define.

It’s not for our benefit, because we’ll be dead. The future of our culture and society must have a firm foundation to stand on, if it is to last.

And that’s my purely secular explanation of how I see things.

Lying, stealing, and cheating on a spouse all have a victim. Homosexual acts and sex outside of marriage have no real victims. So why are those things lumped into the category?

 

[john_ennis]

Do you have a study that states that? Also I think that you can’t really compare because those male couples are not married. If you were to compare those male couples with anyone it should be long term heterosexual cohabitants that are not married either.

I’m talking about statistics from homosexual couples in countries where they’ve legally been permitted to “marry.” I believe that stats were quite stark, and quite consistent among more than one study. Without judging the morality, I don’t think it’s at all surprising, do you?

In any case, I’ll look for a reference.

Gotta go for now.
Peace.
john

 

[Garyjohn2]

Lying, stealing, and cheating on a spouse all have a victim. Homosexual acts and sex outside of marriage have no real victims. So why are those things lumped into the category?

I was just naming some things that people commonly understand as wrong, and some things not so commonly understood these days. Sex outside of marriage does have “real victims.” The rest of my post explains who the other victims are, who might not seem as “real” to us because they do not exist yet.

Also, who said things that are wrong have to have victims? Are we to define and re-define right and wrong, or trust our forefathers and ancestors who set a precedence, built our nation and our society as we know it? These are important questions. Who decides?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

One must also consider that beliefs can be wrong, but that Truth does itself exist, absolutely. To say that another person’s ‘beliefs’ are subjective, relative, or less ‘valid’ than another person’s beliefs tries to reduce the whole idea of truth to what is ‘accepted’ by the majority of people.

But beliefs do matter.

If a person believed that marriage was simply the union (entered into with various ‘trappings’ from either religious or secular customs, and sealed with legal documentations affording certain legal responsibilities and rights) of any two ‘persons’ who ‘loved each other’. . .that person would not see any reason why any Tom and Dick should not ‘marry’ because it is ‘only’ a ‘legal right’ predicated on feelings of ‘love’.

But that is not what marriage is. the above is simply what a small (and vocal) contingent of people are trying to ‘redefine’ marriage AS.

The fact is, you will not find any legal documentation or any longstanding religious or secular customs which view marriage as “what two people have who LOVE each other --nothing else matters’”.

 

[scottm]

I have recently been on another blog, trying to argue against gay marriage. The proponent was pretty aggressive in his views.

the one question he had, for which I am seeking the best answer is; “how is having gay marriage passed into law going to hurt your marriage?” In other words, he is insinuating that since I will not be personally harmed in any way, why should I stand in the way.

Thanks for your help in answering this the best way.

Encouragement of that which violates Natural Law is by definition bad.

Homosexual men ALREADY have EXACTLY the same civil right that I have: they can marry a woman. Likewise homosexual women have the same civil right that my wife has: they can marry a man. Also, every legal right that pops into existence automatically upon marriage, can be obtained through other means. I honestly can’t think of anything that I get by virtue of my marriage, that a homosexual couple cannot get in other ways.

So, what homosexuals are really asking for is encouragement of that which violates Natural Law. And that, by definition, is bad.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Lying, stealing, and cheating on a spouse all have a victim. Homosexual acts and sex outside of marriage have no real victims. So why are those things lumped into the category?

Wow–you don’t think that sex outside of marriage and homosexual actions have ‘victims?’ You think that fornication is a victimless ‘activity?’ You don’t see that even mutual fornication with both people thinking it was ‘wonderful’ is objectively sinful --that it sins against God first, and that these two people are sinning against their own bodies and against each other? And likewise, two homosexuals (male/male or female/female) are sinning against God, their own bodies, and their partners as well. Yes indeed there are victims.

 

[bingbang]

Encouragement of that which violates Natural Law is by definition bad.

Homosexual men ALREADY have EXACTLY the same civil right that I have: they can marry a woman. Likewise homosexual women have the same civil right that my wife has: they can marry a man. Also, every legal right that pops into existence automatically upon marriage, can be obtained through other means. I honestly can’t think of anything that I get by virtue of my marriage, that a homosexual couple cannot get in other ways.

So, what homosexuals are really asking for is encouragement of that which violates Natural Law. And that, by definition, is bad.

How is it against natural law? Animals commit homosexual acts all the time. That seems pretty natural…or are these animals sinning too?

 

[bingbang]

Wow–you don’t think that sex outside of marriage and homosexual actions have ‘victims?’ You think that fornication is a victimless ‘activity?’ You don’t see that even mutual fornication with both people thinking it was ‘wonderful’ is objectively sinful --that it sins against God first, and that these two people are sinning against their own bodies and against each other? And likewise, two homosexuals (male/male or female/female) are sinning against God, their own bodies, and their partners as well. Yes indeed there are victims.

So two people have sex. They both feel good about it, go on their way, and are happy. Neither would consider themselves a victim because it was their choice to do it and they enjoyed it. Now you go up to them and say “well you don’t think you are a victim, but you are.”

Who are YOU to tell someone they are a victim when they themselves do not think so?