Pro-Choice and Pro-gay marriage Arguement

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m debating over the Internet with a couple of atheists. The topics include the pro-life movement as well as gay marriageSomewhere along the line one of the Catholics debating with me declared abortion to denying a child food and letting them starve to death. This was the reply (which also goes into gay marriage):

"There’s a distinct difference [betwen abortion and denying a child food]. Immigrants aren’t physically drawing life from your body, nor are they living inside your body, because they have no right to and nor does any human being (and that’s even assuming a foetus is a person). Similar to how someone raised the argument that it’s illegal to deny an infant food or abandon him, the difference is in the deeply invasive nature of a pregnancy. If it’s unwanted, it would be like being forced to have a living human being hooked up to you with feeding tubes. Again, since the foetus is drawing something from the mother’s body that cannot be supplied by machine before the point of viability, it is drawing part of the mother from her body. It’s a much different situation from basic food, in the case of children or immigrants.

Okay, so back on the topic of gay marriage (ish): You’ve agreed that you don’t think remarriage should be illegal even though the church does not consider it valid. Therefore you don’t believe that marriage law should be based on what the church considers valid, correct?

Going from this, whether or not the church considers a marriage between two men or one between two women is completely irrelevant in terms of the law, yes?

Then we’re back to completely removing religion from the question and looking at the issue of marriage from a secular point of view - why do couples get married, and why do they receive legal benefits from doing so? Is it solely for the purpose of reproduction? Because we’ve already agreed that couples who are infertile, or intentionally sterilized, or post-menopausal, or trying their darndest to not have kids all have the right to be married. So without any reference to religion or religious concepts, what’s the difference between gay couples and these other couples who aren’t able or going to procreate that only gay couples, in your opinion, shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

Then again, even if you do want to bring religion into it, that begs the question of why your religious views should have more legal bearing than those of people whose religions support gay marriage…"

How would you rebut?

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I have had many similar arguments with some friends of mine who are agnostic. I am happy to say that one of them is coming around to the prolife camp, but the other is not. Ah well.

I can’t offer any helpful advice for the gay marriage debate. I generally avoid that topic because I don’t have any smrt comebacks. I am still in the researching phase of all that.

As for this though:

"There’s a distinct difference [betwen abortion and denying a child food]. Immigrants aren’t physically drawing life from your body, nor are they living inside your body, because they have no right to and nor does any human being (and that’s even assuming a foetus is a person). Similar to how someone raised the argument that it’s illegal to deny an infant food or abandon him, the difference is in the deeply invasive nature of a pregnancy. If it’s unwanted, it would be like being forced to have a living human being hooked up to you with feeding tubes. Again, since the foetus is drawing something from the mother’s body that cannot be supplied by machine before the point of viability, it is drawing part of the mother from her body. It’s a much different situation from basic food, in the case of children or immigrants.

I have heard this used ad nauseum from prochoicers. The basic principle is that the unborn child is taking something from the mother against her will, and it’s her right to decide whether she is going to allow it or not. It operates on the premise that the woman had no choice in the matter, and now there is this lifeform leeching off her without her consent.

This argument only holds up in cases of virginal conception. Every man knows that when he lies down with a woman, there is a chance of conception. He has the legal system and child support to thank for this. The woman seems to have fallen behind in this though from the removal of consequences. The truth is, consenting to sex is consenting to the chance of conception. Sex is a choice, not pregnancy. This will naturally lead to “well, what about rape?” To which there is always the response: “When we are talking about the fetus as a person, why is it fair to punish the child for the sins of the father, especially when there is a 6 month waiting list for adoption and thousands of organizations that will give the mother all the help she needs through her pregnancy?” and the other “The woman has already been brutalized once. Why should she have to be violated again by getting an abortion because she feels she has no other choice? You don’t want her, years later, when she is expecting a child to look at an ultrasound and feel crushing despair at the loss of her first child.”

The most important thing in these discussions though is to remember love and charity for the mother, the child, and the person you are discussing it with. I myself have gotten caught up in one too many heated debates with friends, and there is also the fact that you don’t want to come from a standpoint of “well, if you have sex that’s what you get!” I’ve made that mistake too…

Go get 'em!!

 

[JohnDamian]

This is how I would reply;

"There’s a distinct difference [betwen abortion and denying a child food]. Immigrants aren’t physically drawing life from your body, nor are they living inside your body, because they have no right to and nor does any human being (and that’s even assuming a foetus is a person). Similar to how someone raised the argument that it’s illegal to deny an infant food or abandon him, the difference is in the deeply invasive nature of a pregnancy. If it’s unwanted, it would be like being forced to have a living human being hooked up to you with feeding tubes. Again, since the foetus is drawing something from the mother’s body that cannot be supplied by machine before the point of viability, it is drawing part of the mother from her body. It’s a much different situation from basic food, in the case of children or immigrants.

The nature of the difference is that a (born) child who requires food is at the mercy of society as a whole; wheras an (unborn) child is at the mercy of only one individual. We can see that there is a distinction between the two, but the essentail morality underlies it - can any moral person stand idly by whislt a child starves? It is true that the individual and personal nature of a pregnancy is more intimate than society as a whole, but this increased pressure is an increased responsibility - and one that should be embraced - intimacy is no excuse for abandoning morality.

Then we’re back to completely removing religion from the question and looking at the issue of marriage from a secular point of view - why do couples get married, and why do they receive legal benefits from doing so? Is it solely for the purpose of reproduction? Because we’ve already agreed that couples who are infertile, or intentionally sterilized, or post-menopausal, or trying their darndest to not have kids all have the right to be married. So without any reference to religion or religious concepts, what’s the difference between gay couples and these other couples who aren’t able or going to procreate that only gay couples, in your opinion, shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

Then again, even if you do want to bring religion into it, that begs the question of why your religious views should have more legal bearing than those of people whose religions support gay marriage…"

A “relationship” between partners that is based purely upon sex or infatuation is absurd; all such relationships be they homosexual, heterosexual with contraception etc. are demonstrably opposed to the possibility of procreation. Such a relationship is merely the indulgence of ones lust onto another human being who becomes objectified, and in turn objectifies you - how can this be called “love” - love is a giving and embracing feeling, which encompasses and is generous to procreation - a relationships foundation should be on love; and where there is a deliberate avoidance of generosity; love is absent. We should not call any “marraige” a marraige if it is a purely selfish affair, absent of all love - and based in lust. This is why other such “relationships”, such as those with animals or children is inappropriate - because it is a clear lack of embracing a procreative and generous relationship - it is merely lust.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

JohnDamian, I used your excellent response-thanks!

 

[Luke_K]

"There’s a distinct difference [betwen abortion and denying a child food]. Immigrants aren’t physically drawing life from your body, nor are they living inside your body, because they have no right to and nor does any human being (and that’s even assuming a foetus is a person). Similar to how someone raised the argument that it’s illegal to deny an infant food or abandon him, the difference is in the deeply invasive nature of a pregnancy. If it’s unwanted, it would be like being forced to have a living human being hooked up to you with feeding tubes. Again, since the foetus is drawing something from the mother’s body that cannot be supplied by machine before the point of viability, it is drawing part of the mother from her body. It’s a much different situation from basic food, in the case of children or immigrants.

Wow, whoever said this has a very distorted view of reality. Don’t they realize that pregnancy is completely natural and that a woman’s body is designed in so many ways for it? It seems like in our modern 1st-world society we’re forgetting what makes us human, to the point that a baby is an invasive, parasitic growth inside the woman’s body. It’s disturbing.

Plus, a woman will have every part of her body after the birth that she had before getting pregnant.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Just want you guys to know what happened in the debate. Here was the atheist’s response (I used JohnDamian’s reply):

"There can be plenty of generosity in a gay couple. They can adopt children, or one of them can have children. Infertile straight couples can love each other with or without children, and they can show this “generosity” you seem intent on if they adopt. So can gay couples.

I’d also like to add that there’s a massive difference between sex - and love - between two consenting adults and a situation where one adult takes advantage of a child or animal unable to consent. Honestly, you’re the last person I’d have expected to stoop low enough to compare gay sex to bestiality and paedophilia, but apparently I just have naively high expectations of your sense of decency and…basic intelligence…"

So I said:

"Wow, somebody has never heard of argumentum ad absurdium.

Well I’m out. You guys have fun. [Several people have been involved in this debate for awhile]

I’m not going to be treated like this. I NEVER insulted you like that. Ever.

I just lost all respect for you, too. So the feeling is mutual."

So, yeah. I’m not going to let this person insult me like that. I’m not debating this with him/her (ambiguous screenname) if they’re going to attack my intelligence and sense of decency because they didn’t like what I said. It’s a controversial debate, expect controversial responses.

 

[FlyCatcher]

Then we’re back to completely removing religion from the question and looking at the issue of marriage from a secular point of view - why do couples get married, and why do they receive legal benefits from doing so? Is it solely for the purpose of reproduction? Because we’ve already agreed that couples who are infertile, or intentionally sterilized, or post-menopausal, or trying their darndest to not have kids all have the right to be married. So without any reference to religion or religious concepts, what’s the difference between gay couples and these other couples who aren’t able or going to procreate that only gay couples, in your opinion, shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

People enter civil marriage for whatever reason they choose. It can be anything. There is no restriction to the reason or purpose a couple has for civil marriage. They do not have to decalre their reason or purpose. Nobody asks. Nobody cares.

They get legal benefits because a sufficient number join together and petition the legislature to give them benefits. They vote. It is also much easier to bundle benefits, obligations, and privileges together rather than handle them all separetely for each individual couple. It’s efficient.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

People enter civil marriage for whatever reason they choose. It can be anything. There is no restriction to the reason or purpose a couple has for civil marriage. They do not have to decalre their reason or purpose. Nobody asks. Nobody cares.

They get legal benefits because a sufficient number join together and petition the legislature to give them benefits. They vote. It is also much easier to bundle benefits, obligations, and privileges together rather than handle them all separetely for each individual couple. It’s efficient.

See, I would have had no issue with a response like this. None. Then we continue the debate.

EDIT: Wait…I’m misunderstanding your arguement here. Ignore me.

 

[DOShea]

Well just so you know, this is the norm for how these conversations go.

The problem is no one representing the gay marriage side will accept a single model with which to discuss. And there is good reason for that, because just about every model you can adopt has serious issues. This explains the jumping from one aspect to another to another until they finally pull the ejection lever, and of course it’s always because they are offended.

But like it or not we don’t have very much scholarly data to work with when it comes to the formation of children with two same-sex parents. When you walk near a mud puddle that could be deep, the prudent person will not step into it lest it be deep and they become stuck or at least sacrifice their footwear to the mud as they struggle out. Gays and lesbians merely assert they can be good parents, and cite the numerous cases of heterosexual marrige homes with problems. Therefore, they think, they can be no worse, possibly even better.

However we are talking about human lives here, and that is not a good subject with which to wager.

The basic difference in opinion over these marital issues is truth. What standard will each use as their goalpost for what is/isn’t true. Try to find a homosexual argument in favor of gay marriage that isn’t based on individualism; that isn’t based on “I should get what I want and you should not impose your morality on me.” Yet they would be the first to want morality imposed on issues such as slavery, discrimination, or murder.

So why draw the line short of ONLY gay marriage?

I think it has to do with their idea of love being a short-radiused thing; that love only reaches to and returns from the person being loved. That isn’t what the gospels teach about love. They teach that you love God by loving others, each perhaps in different ways. Certainly raising a family (not outsourcing it to a fertile hetero couple) is part of that, the procreation aspect, and that does not get shoved aside or outweighed by the good of adoption.

Back to my opening point, you can count on any time you bring up ANY of the most outlandish behavior of gays and lesbians, even though their magazines and websites even their parades openly promote it, they will clamp shut like a clam in denial and transfer their anger to you (usually by claiming to be highly insulted) because they don’t want to face the reality of it. They want you to decide a social policy on who they are, not on who those in the spectrum of their lifestyle contains.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the term “bug chaser” or not, but it is a gay man who desires to have sex with HIV/AIDS infected men in order to contract the disease. I’m not making that up, look it up for yourself. This is the kind of self-destructive behavior that exists in some in that lifestyle. I don’t know how many, but if it has a name there must be more than a handful. What amazed me is that they are not universally condemned as fools by the rest. That doesn’t inspire confidence when it comes time for me to vote or to decide which candidate to support.