Homosexual "marriage" -- HISTORICAL arguments against

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeHalbrook
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MikeHalbrook

Guest
I have been debating a friend on the topic of same-sex “marriage”. He’s not accepting any logical natural-law or faith-based arguments. I know that I’ve heard people argue that homosexuality has led to the downfall of societies, but I’ve never actually seen any specific examples of how homosexuality led to their downfall (and where to find good source material and/or historical evidence.)

Any (name removed by moderator)ut on this side of the topic? I’m on a 6-hour car drive to a conference with him tomorrow and it’d be nice to have some thoughts in mind in case the topic comes up again.

Peace,
Michael
 
40.png
MikeHalbrook:
I have been debating a friend on the topic of same-sex “marriage”. He’s not accepting any logical natural-law or faith-based arguments. I know that I’ve heard people argue that homosexuality has led to the downfall of societies, but I’ve never actually seen any specific examples of how homosexuality led to their downfall (and where to find good source material and/or historical evidence.)

Any (name removed by moderator)ut on this side of the topic? I’m on a 6-hour car drive to a conference with him tomorrow and it’d be nice to have some thoughts in mind in case the topic comes up again.

Peace,
Michael
Click to expand...
The only historical referance I can think of off hand is an Edict proclaimed by Emporer Augustus. He forbid Ploygamy and Homosexual unions as harmful to the Empire. He saw the strength of the monogamous family unit as central and critical to the strength and continuity of the Roman Empire. He believed that the practices of the “Barbarians” in this reagard as harmful to society. Of course his beliefs in this regard were ignored by subsequent generations. He was right. It WAS the Barbarians who destroyed Rome.
 
Here’s the OLDEST “historical” argument…about 6,000 years give or take a few…

If it had been Adam & Steve instead of Adam & Eve…NONE OF US, your friend included would be here. 😉
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
Here’s the OLDEST “historical” argument…about 6,000 years give or take a few…

If it had been Adam & Steve instead of Adam & Eve…NONE OF US, your friend included would be here. 😉
Click to expand...
Who did Adam’s sons marry? Their sisters? Now there’s an interesting definition of marriage.
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
Here’s the OLDEST “historical” argument…about 6,000 years give or take a few…

If it had been Adam & Steve instead of Adam & Eve…NONE OF US, your friend included would be here. 😉
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough these people were born without the existence of a woman.
With God anything is possible.
 
I don’t know if there is a historical reference, but here is a practical argument. (At least I think so)

Imagine that there was a way to put an island where there would be only a one sex population. They will be self-sufficient and completely isolated from the rest of the world. (from mythology the island of Lesbos and the amazons, but they had male slaves for a reason). Once the island fills up, no more people are admitted, and they can never leave for any reason.

What would happen after only a generation? OK, maybe two. They die off, because the means of building a next generation is gone. Could this be considered a downfall of a society? It doesn’t matter how many technological advances we make as humans, a man will never be able to give birth, and a woman cannot conceive without a man.

This is a side effect of the immoral behavior.

Hope this helps! God bless
 
40.png
BGlez:
I don’t know if there is a historical reference, but here is a practical argument. (At least I think so)

Imagine that there was a way to put an island where there would be only a one sex population. They will be self-sufficient and completely isolated from the rest of the world. (from mythology the island of Lesbos and the amazons, but they had male slaves for a reason). Once the island fills up, no more people are admitted, and they can never leave for any reason.

What would happen after only a generation? OK, maybe two. They die off, because the means of building a next generation is gone. Could this be considered a downfall of a society? It doesn’t matter how many technological advances we make as humans, a man will never be able to give birth, and a woman cannot conceive without a man.

This is a side effect of the immoral behavior.

Hope this helps! God bless
Click to expand...
It’s more the effect of stupid planning by the folks who populated the island.

The same thing would happen if the island were populated by men and women over sixty years old. That, too, would be stupid behavior. What does that say about people over sixty?
 
40.png
Ken:
It’s more the effect of stupid planning by the folks who populated the island.

The same thing would happen if the island were populated by men and women over sixty years old. That, too, would be stupid behavior. What does that say about people over sixty?
Click to expand...
Or if it were populated only by observant Catholic clergy, for that matter.

I am a lawyer, not a farmer. There are many valid arguments against the existence of my profession, but the fact that all of society would starve to death if everyone were a lawyer is not one of them.

Not everyone is a lawyer, so we still have farmers to grow food. Not everyone is homosexual, so society staggers on from generation to generation.
 
Auberon Quin:
Or if it were populated only by observant Catholic clergy, for that matter.

I am a lawyer, not a farmer. There are many valid arguments against the existence of my profession, but the fact that all of society would starve to death if everyone were a lawyer is not one of them.

Not everyone is a lawyer, so we still have farmers to grow food. Not everyone is homosexual, so society staggers on from generation to generation.
Click to expand...
Sure, sounds like a great argument for legalizing murder too, afterall, not everyone is a murderer, some of us just don’t have it in us, so what’s the big deal, why make it illegal (except of course that murderers are part of the livelihood for all them lawyers) 🙂 ??
 
40.png
Ptero:
Sure, sounds like a great argument for legalizing murder too, afterall, not everyone is a murderer, some of us just don’t have it in us, so what’s the big deal, why make it illegal (except of course that murderers are part of the livelihood for all them lawyers) 🙂 ??
Click to expand...
(Sigh) Subtlety is wasted on this board, I think.

Again with the lawyer-bashing. My point was that it’s not really a good argument for anything at all.
 
Straw man:
The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than your opponents actually offer. It is not a logical fallacy to disprove a weak argument. Rather, this fallacy lies in declaring one argument’s conclusion to be wrong because of flaws in another argument.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:


  1. *]Present only a portion of your opponent’s arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that you have refuted all of their arguments.
    *]Present your opponent’s argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted the original.
    *]Present a misrepresentation of your opponent’s position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent’s actual position.
    *]Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that you’ve refuted every argument for that position.
    *]Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that that person represents a group that the speaker is critical.

    That is all. Please carry on.
 
40.png
Vitus:
Straw man:
The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than your opponents actually offer. It is not a logical fallacy to disprove a weak argument. Rather, this fallacy lies in declaring one argument’s conclusion to be wrong because of flaws in another argument.

…

That is all. Please carry on.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

In all fairness, the constraints of this forum don’t allow the discussion of complex and contentious topics in the depth that they deserve.
 
40.png
Ken:
Who did Adam’s sons marry? Their sisters? Now there’s an interesting definition of marriage.
Click to expand...
At least they got the working parts right and were able to fulfill the purpose of marriage…procreation.

The main purpose of marriage is to establish a relationship for the procreation and education of children. Homosexual couples cannot have children unless they involve a third party.
 
Well, didn’t homosexuality itself lead to the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah? If there is historical material that Sodom and Gomorrah were truly destroyed, perhaps you could show that to your friend.
 
40.png
condan:
At least they got the working parts right and were able to fulfill the purpose of marriage…procreation.

The main purpose of marriage is to establish a relationship for the procreation and education of children. Homosexual couples cannot have children unless they involve a third party.
Click to expand...
Well, did they marry their sisters?
 
Most theologans say “yes”. That would also explain the people that Cain was afraid of after he was driven away, and why he needed the mark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top