Good links to argue against gay marriage from a secular perspective

[Kalmbach]

DEFEATING “GAY” ARGUMENTS WITH SIMPLE LOGIC

A couple of things that stood out in this detailed and poorly written hate literature:

From the article: “Can you cite me any study that absolutely proves that gays are
born that way?””

The fact of the matter is there is very strong, if complex to interpret, evidence for the biological loading of homosexuality. Nothing is ever “proven” in the scientific sense. Can you cite me any study that absolutely proves that straights are born that way?

From the article: “If orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior, what stops
pedophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights?”

The fact that pedophilia has an enormous potential for harm and abuse; that true consent (as seen with adults) cannot be given by a child.

From the article: "Pedophile behavior is illegal because it harms children. Homosexual behavior is still illegal in many states
because it spreads disease and dysfunction.”

This is hate propoganda; no studies confirm these findings replicably (i.e., (that homosexuals are spreading a disproportionate share of illness, in relation to other orientations). Besides which, heterosexual intercourse creates the same risk of disease.

In the article: “You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual
conduct even if it threatens the public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles.”

Threatening public health by potentially spreading disease is much more complex an issue than whether we should be letting adults have sex with our children. Most notably, there are plenty of options available to adults to decrease the risk of disease and public health outbreaks; there is little or no way to decrease the risk of harm when having sex with a child.

The best of these arguments are totally asinine; you would be embarassed and ridiculed to debate in a public forum using them.

 

[StarFireKK]

This is something separate and outside of the Catholic church.
No one is telling you that *your *church must perform gay marriages!

Are you certain it will stay that way?

Look at abortion and contraception. Our hospitals are fighting for the right to not preform abortions, our doctors are fighting for the right to not prescribe contraception. Now we are getting into a fight about what health insurance Catholic employers can or can’t provide.

I remember"no one is telling Catholics they have to agree or provide these services" was an argument that was made.

The truth of the matter is if SSM gets the same public support abortion, sadly, has gotten- the movement will come gunning for the Churches and the organizations that oppose it.

 

[Bezant]

Very interesting thread. I will read the articles posted.

 

[Incomplete]

From the article: “If orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior, what stops
pedophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights?”

The fact that pedophilia has an enormous potential for harm and abuse; that true consent (as seen with adults) cannot be given by a child.

I agree with that last statement, but it looks like the American Psychiatric Association no longer agrees with either one of us. It also appears that pedophiles are starting the fight for claiming equality.

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

From Pedophiles Want Same Rights As Homosexuals.

 

[Kalmbach]

I agree with that last statement, but it looks like the American Psychiatric Association no longer agrees with either one of us. It also appears that pedophiles are starting the fight for claiming equality.

From Pedophiles Want Same Rights As Homosexuals.

I was quoting this APA bit to some staff members at my work the other day. It’s very controversail, but I say potential harm, not to indicate probability (because the research is fairly rigorous in these findings), but to emphasize the consent bit. Our standard for what we will accept as sexually appropriate in society can’t be contingent upon just those probabilites that they will recover emotionally, because we aren’t eliminating the minority of cases in which harm is done permanently, and could not possibly have been prevented by a child (do, as I’ve said, to the consent piece).

Also, this APA discussion revolves around those who have recovered, after time, from sexual abuse. That’s not to say that actions imputed to young children weren’t devistating at the time; just that resiliant children turned into resiliant adults. Pedophile lobbiests have their work ahead of them.

 

[Mudgely]

DEFEATING “GAY” ARGUMENTS WITH SIMPLE LOGIC

Thanks… I assume you meant that as a joke. He starts out explaining what sophistry is, and then delivers pages of it.

 

[Incomplete]

I was quoting this APA bit to some staff members at my work the other day. It’s very controversail, but I say potential harm, not to indicate probability (because the research is fairly rigorous in these findings), but to emphasize the consent bit. Our standard for what we will accept as sexually appropriate in society can’t be contingent upon just those probabilites that they will recover emotionally, because we aren’t eliminating the minority of cases in which harm is done permanently, and could not possibly have been prevented by a child (do, as I’ve said, to the consent piece).

Also, this APA discussion revolves around those who have recovered, after time, from sexual abuse. That’s not to say that actions imputed to young children weren’t devistating at the time; just that resiliant children turned into resiliant adults. Pedophile lobbiests have their work ahead of them.

After reading your post, I did some checking and saw that the DSM changed, then changed back again. But the article I read that said it changed back didn’t have a date on it. Can I assume that this is the latest?

I think it’s that “consent” bit that becomes problematic, and then tying it into a specific age. For example, a teen friend of my daughter got caught up on a relationship with someone twice that person’s age and the friend claimed it was “love”. We called the cops. Needless to say, the friend did not remain a friend. And the friend just moved on to other inappropriate relationships. And most of the kids did not understand why we called the cop; they saw nothing wrong because it was a “consensual” relationship. People can easily make the point that there was no harm done.

I suspect this is where society is heading, and why we will eventually see the normalizing of pedophilia. I have seen it already on television. Just surfing through channels, I have seen it in (mostly) comedies, seeing adults with kids in sexual situations.

The rest of the article that I linked to seemed to show a movement that way as well.

 

[buffalo]

A couple of things that stood out in this detailed and poorly written hate literature:

From the article: “Can you cite me any study that absolutely proves that gays are
born that way?””

The fact of the matter is there is very strong, if complex to interpret, evidence for the biological loading of homosexuality. Nothing is ever “proven” in the scientific sense. Can you cite me any study that absolutely proves that straights are born that way?

From the article: “If orientation has nothing to do with sexual behavior, what stops
pedophiles from claiming equality with gays and straights?”

The fact that pedophilia has an enormous potential for harm and abuse; that true consent (as seen with adults) cannot be given by a child.

From the article: "Pedophile behavior is illegal because it harms children. Homosexual behavior is still illegal in many states
because it spreads disease and dysfunction.”

This is hate propoganda; no studies confirm these findings replicably (i.e., (that homosexuals are spreading a disproportionate share of illness, in relation to other orientations). Besides which, heterosexual intercourse creates the same risk of disease.

In the article: “You also believe that society has no right to regulate sexual
conduct even if it threatens the public health, but you would make an exception for pedophiles.”

Threatening public health by potentially spreading disease is much more complex an issue than whether we should be letting adults have sex with our children. Most notably, there are plenty of options available to adults to decrease the risk of disease and public health outbreaks; there is little or no way to decrease the risk of harm when having sex with a child.

The best of these arguments are totally asinine; you would be embarassed and ridiculed to debate in a public forum using them.

Hate literature? If you mean that it hates homosexual actions then so be it. I hate sin and evil too.

Known causes of same-sex attraction

Except now in some states there are petitions to lower the age of consent. Ever heard of Nambla?

Health Risks of the homosexual act - I vote and I do not want to pay for this risk with my tax dollars. Risky behavior should go into a risk pool.

I am not embarrassed to be politically incorrect in serving the truth. Nice try though.

 

[buffalo]

We have moved from the obvious way to determine one’s sex to “what sex I think I am today”. Just recently a prison guard showed up for work Friday one sex and then Monday another. The practical issues here are staggering. How about a teacher who flip-flops like this?

 

[Kalmbach]

Hate literature? If you mean that it hates homosexual actions then so be it. I hate sin and evil too.

Known causes of same-sex attraction

Except now in some states there are petitions to lower the age of consent. Ever heard of Nambla?

Health Risks of the homosexual act - I vote and I do not want to pay for this risk with my tax dollars. Risky behavior should go into a risk pool.

I am not embarrassed to be politically incorrect in serving the truth. Nice try though.

You find me some review literature in a research journal and we’ll talk. This isn’t science; it’s propoganga.

 

[buffalo]

You find me some review literature in a research journal and we’ll talk. This isn’t science; it’s propoganga.

Pull your head out of the sand man. Research it yourself - starts with epitheleal lining.

 

[Kalmbach]

Pull your head out of the sand man.

You were more than willing to send me your data spreads on the risk involved in homosexual behaviour when it was from a non-academic, religious website; you’re no longer willing to provide evidence for your point when asked to tighten up your standard of facts.

The problem–even if this hate literature were true, and the numbers not misleading, and the scientific evidence ignored–the problem is that you’re essnetializing what it is to be homosexual, making disease a necessary feature when, by definition alone, it’s not.

Being a poor African is a health risk, but there’s nothing necessary about that. Do you see what I mean about essentializing what it means to belong to a certain social category?

Furthermore, the issue of disease–wherever it may pop up–is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to marry. If anything, the movement into a monogomous lifestyle would limit the spread of disease. That people get sick and pass it onto others has nothing to do with whether or not two people should be allowed to wed and qualify for all the same benefits heterosexual couples do.

All of this is moot though, since this is poorly-conceived, poorly-vailed hate mongering.

 

[buffalo]

You were more than willing to send me your data spreads on the risk involved in homosexual behaviour when it was from a non-academic, religious website; you’re no longer willing to provide evidence for your point when asked to tighten up your standard of facts.

The problem–even if this hate literature were true, and the numbers not misleading, and the scientific evidence ignored–the problem is that you’re essnetializing what it is to be homosexual, making disease a necessary feature when, by definition alone, it’s not.

Being a poor African is a health risk, but there’s nothing necessary about that. Do you see what I mean about essentializing what it means to belong to a certain social category?

Furthermore, the issue of disease–wherever it may pop up–is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to marry. If anything, the movement into a monogomous lifestyle would limit the spread of disease. That people get sick and pass it onto others has nothing to do with whether or not two people should be allowed to wed and qualify for all the same benefits heterosexual couples do.

All of this is moot though, since this is poorly-conceived, poorly-vailed hate mongering.

The medical literature is out there.

The act violates natural law and Divine law. Man did not define marriage. Now he is attempting to to suit his desires. What you are asking for is license. The reason heterosexual marriage received benefits and recognition is that it is good for society and the common good. Homosexual acts are not.

Again, I hate - evil and sin wherever it exists.

I as a citizen of the US want marriage to be between one man and one woman for the benefit of society and children. I vote and will vote for laws that support this.

No matter how much homosexual activists try the homosexual act will never be accepted. You know that and that is why judicial activism is necessary.

 

[Kalmbach]

I as a citizen of the US want marriage to be between one man and one woman for the benefit of society and children. I vote and will vote for laws that support this.

How does heterosexual marriage benefit society in ways homosexual marriages cannot?

Also, it’s just a matter of time before it’s accepted at least in a secular sense (gay marriage that is). It’s already moving in that direction. Your views strike me as having the same assured quality as those who said women would never vote or be in parlament; black people will never occupy the white labour market; etc. It will come to surface one day that rights are not something on which you can vote; they’re suppose to be available to everyone.

 

[buffalo]

How does heterosexual marriage benefit society in ways homosexual marriages cannot?

Also, it’s just a matter of time before it’s accepted at least in a secular sense (gay marriage that is). It’s already moving in that direction. Your views strike me as having the same assured quality as those who said women would never vote or be in parlament; black people will never occupy the white labour market; etc. It will come to surface one day that rights are not something on which you can vote; they’re suppose to be available to everyone.

Children would not know one of their biologic parents. Children have a right to a mother and father. What you mention has to do with the dignity of human persons. Don’t confuse this with homosexual acts that are chosen.

 

[Kalmbach]

Children would not know one of their biologic parents.

And how is that bad for society?

Children have a right to a mother and father.

They certainly have the right to protection, and it’s always preferable that this is in the family setting (though your definition of family is narrower than mine). Your opinion on what a family ought to look like doesn’t tell me how other definitions and formations of family are bad for society.

 

[buffalo]

And how is that bad for society?

They certainly have the right to protection, and it’s always preferable that this is in the family setting (though your definition of family is narrower than mine). Your opinion on what a family ought to look like doesn’t tell me how other definitions and formations of family are bad for society.

A stable intact family structure produces civic minded, productive and lawful citizens.

You now want to change the definition of a family, too? I support legislation that would strengthen families. I would reconsider no fault divorce and support marriage training.

 

[Kalmbach]

A stable intact family structure produces civic minded, productive and lawful citizens.

And how does a family headed by homosexual partners go against being civic-minded, productive, and lawful?

You now want to change the definition of a family, too? I support legislation that would strengthen families.

And in what ways would a family headed by homosexual partners be weakened?

 

[buffalo]

And how does a family headed by homosexual partners go against being civic-minded, productive, and lawful?

And in what ways would a family headed by homosexual partners be weakened?

Children are denied the basic right to their biological mother and father.

It violates natural law.

 

[Kalmbach]

Children are denied the basic right to their biological mother and father.

It violates natural law.

You’re going in circles here:

I said: “And how is that bad for society [to not know one of your biological parents]?
You said: “A stable intact family structure produces civic minded, productive and lawful citizens”
I said: “And how does a family headed by homosexual partners go against being civic-minded, productive, and lawful?”
You said: “Children are denied the basic right to their biological mother and father.”

You’re totally dodging my question by going in loops (none of which are really addressing my question to begin with). You don’t have to have an answer for everything; if you don’t know, just say so.