Secular argument against gay marriage

[josh987654321]

.

This isn’t just directed just at you inocente, however I would really appreciate it if you took the time to just view this very short clip on youtube inocente.

This is for everyone who is christian (non-christians are welcomed too! ) and supports same sex marriage.

Anyway this is a very good youtube clip that only goes for a total of 9:00 minutes, so it’s very short and very good.

Acceptance of Homosexuality in Christianity - Ravi Zacharias

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

Well, let’s take this real world evidence of yours and relegate it to the patently and ridiculously inconsistent bin where it belongs, shall we…

If procreation is not regarded as essential to the question of marriage, then why on earth would the Spanish government not allow relatives of the sort you mention to marry each other? Obviously, because procreation is essential where relatives marrying each other is concerned. How can it consistently be non-essential in every respect and then suddenly becomes crucially important in the marriage of relatives? Either it is important and essential or it is not. Which is it?

You need to be made aware of the ludicrous implications that come about when you consistently hold to the notion that procreation is not a consideration in determining who should marry. The Spanish government seems to be vaguely aware of those implications, which is why they added the bit about excluding bloodline relatives.

Apparently, the Spanish government, along with the Hong Kong authority and you, as well, seem to be in need of an update regarding what the words “logically consistent” mean.

Real world evidence should be discarded when it is clearly irrational.

According to your strange logic, being drunk is essential to driving because governments legislate against drunk driving.

I’ve suggested before that if you tried to find the weaknesses in your own arguments before posting, you wouldn’t keep making these trivial mistakes.

 

[josh987654321]

.
josh987654321;10752909:

So I guess we might have to agree to disagree on this one, because you being non-religious. I think the only way I will convince you is to convince you to become a Christian and I don’t see that happening any time soon.

This got me searching and I apologise for the off topic nature of this post, but I would very quickly like to share this with you Candide West, you can PM me replies if you like.

Anyway, like the other it only goes for 9:55 on youtube, so it’s very short and very good.

The Best Reply To, Athiest, Agnostic and Evolutionists - Ravi Zacharias

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

So your rationale for prohibiting two consenting adults, who happen to be related by blood, from acting upon their love for one another is: “Well, everyone else thinks it’s wrong; therefore, it must be wrong!”

Argumentum ad populum.

Completely false, I’ll take it to be a mistake on your part rather than disingenuous.

Ad populum is a fallacious argument which concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. I didn’t do that now, did I? I didn’t claim incest is bad because there’s a taboo, I said “you have an impossible job trying to convince the vast majority of people that marriage should be open to any form of incest”.

Unlike an online debate, in the real world there are consequences to actions and as said many times now, the main problem with incest is the possibility of inbreeding, which produces offspring who suffer defects, infants who suffer and need to be cared for in the real world. Presumably that’s why the taboo against incest is so powerful.

The only case where inbreeding would be impossible is father-son or brother-brother relationships, but I think the taboo against incest is so powerful that you will not find any support for making them an exception, even though you may find it illogical.

But by all means stand in the middle of the mall and ask people to sign your petition to let fathers marry sons and brothers marry brothers, and if you get lots of signatures I’ll eat my hat.

 

[inocente]

Yes. well said. Arguing with Inocent (who seems not so innocent) is a bit like dodge ball. He already knows the conclusion. Logic is simply something he uses out of convenience to some end.

Please see post #761. :coffeeread:

 

[inocente]

And I suppose your proud grandmother, watching you on parade with the other soldiers, exclaimed “Look, everyone but Peter Plato is out of step!”.
Peter Plato;10747959:

That would all depend upon where “everyone” is headed. I prefer not to be overly taken in by what “people” think.

I’d have thought that joke is so old that everyone would understand it, but there you go.

 

[inocente]

well said, but isn’t it obvious that the truth is not reaching the masses? I really miss William F. Buckley. I see ETWN bringing more intellect to the discussion; Maybe in reaching out to wayward Catholics, we can turn the ship around. Maybe that is why we have detractors flooding Catholic Answers to give the appearance of calamity within the Church. They don’t realize that God’s providence is moving them, and that His will is done regardless of the individual intentions.

KEEP THE FAITH!

P.S. Don’t forget the influence of Marx in corrupting our notion of equality, and nietzsche’s will to power in the re-defining of life and liberty.

And in Spain it came to pass that 4 out of 5 people were Catholic and 2 out of 3 people approved gay marriage, and verily did the opponents of gay marriage try long and hard to change their minds and verily they did not, because the masses had debated it for many weeks in bars and cafes and came to their own conclusion.

 

[inocente]

It is incredibly naive to think academic progress at school is evidence that children are more fulfilled and happier living with two male adults or two female adults rather than with a man and a woman who care for them as a father and mother. They tend to concentrate on their studies - as I did - because at home they miss a normal family life.

It’s not my field but my impression is that there are many other studies based on other data-sets which reach the same conclusions while there are few if any peer-reviewed studies supporting your conclusion.

You said “the activity of married heterosexuals is a private matter” but apparently believe that the activity of homosexuals isn’t a private matter. It follows that you are inconsistent.
tonyrey;10749677:

The activity of homosexuals ceases to be a private matter **when they adopt children **

who are exposed to a greater risk of infection.

That’s inconsistent since adoption agencies would be highly irresponsible if they were any less concerned at the health and life-style of prospective heterosexual adopters.

An important question in that respect is whether the applicants are in a monogamous relationship, and denying marriage makes that question harder to answer.

You said “The issue is not what people regard as abnormal and unacceptable within traditional marriage” while you have argued that what people regard in a homosexual relationship is relevant. It follows that you are inconsistent.
tonyrey;10749677:

You are assuming that a homosexual relationship is comparable to a traditional marriage!

No, I didn’t make any assumptions there but just observed that you are being inconsistent.

It is not what an appeal to my opinion but a conclusion based on* an objective fact***: the complementarity of the father and mother.

That remains just an opinion until you provide a supporting argument.

*Indeed. **All ***beliefs are subjective but they are objective when based on established facts - not passing fashions - like physical and psychological differences which are essential for the preservation and well-being of the family.

That remains just an opinion until you provide supporting evidence.

I’ve been arguing all along that marriage is not about sex, it’s not me who’s been arguing marriage is about sex.
tonyrey;10749677:

The complementary roles of the father and mother remain unrefuted.

Non sequitur, and in any event if that’s your claim, you’re the one who needs to support it.

*The reference to income is revealing. Most children prefer to have a foster **father ***and mother regardless of income. They wish to be like other children and not belong to a one-sided household.

Please cite evidence, noting that to be relevant your cited study will must take account of probable bias in children in any country where adults discriminate against homosexuals.

*A most illogical deduction! Homosexuals are not “bad” but **through no fault of their own ***two males or two females are incapable of adequately replacing the love and care of a man and woman because they do have the physical and psychological differences which are essential for the preservation and well-being of the family - without which the basic unit of society will lose its unique status and eventually disappear, thereby defeating the purpose of the quest for equality because it will apply to an obsolete custom which will have become a meaningless description of any relationship between persons - or even persons and animals.

Leaving aside the large number of one-parent families, you keep claiming that there are psychological differences between the genders which are important in raising children without providing any supporting evidence.

And this is in any case irrelevant to gay marriage since in your country and many others unmarried same-sex couples have been able to adopt for many years.

Why not get married to a cat, a dog, a horse or a monkey? When men and women think they alone determine what is right or wrong they reduce life to an absurd farce dominated by a quest for pleasure which finally leads to a sense of futility, isolation and emptiness. When everything is permissible nothing is valuable.

Now now, temper temper.

 

[inocente]

This isn’t just directed just at you inocente, however I would really appreciate it if you took the time to just view this very short clip on youtube inocente.

This is for everyone who is christian (non-christians are welcomed too! ) and supports same sex marriage.

Anyway this is a very good youtube clip that only goes for a total of 9:00 minutes, so it’s very short and very good.

Acceptance of Homosexuality in Christianity - Ravi Zacharias

Thank you for reading
Josh

He’s extraordinarily and embarrassingly sexist. To save others having to sit through it, the argument is that sexuality is sacred based on the notion that “God created mankind and womankind” (not humankind ) which in turn is based on the notion that God created women to meet emotional needs of men which God Himself cannot meet. So there you go, the purpose of women is to meet the emotional needs of men .

Yikes!!!

 

[josh987654321]

He’s extraordinarily and embarrassingly sexist. To save others having to sit through it, the argument is that sexuality is sacred based on the notion that “God created mankind and womankind” (not humankind ) which in turn is based on the notion that God created women to meet emotional needs of men which God Himself cannot meet. So there you go, the purpose of women is to meet the emotional needs of men .

Yikes!!!

didn’t you know that men are superior to women? haha Just Kidding.

He was reffering to the bible, it also includes vise versa. It’s in relation to male and female compatibility.

Humankind is man-kind and woman-kind it is male and female. How do you say that God created humankind yet not male and female?

Anyway I am really curious to read your reply to my previous posts here - #719 & #720

This was just a side argument, was worth a shot

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

Anyway I am really curious to read your reply to my previous posts here - #719 & #720

Sorry, I thought you must have replied be didn’t spot them.

I believe that God created heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, whether it be from the big bang theory or whatever, it was still Gods creation and design, do you not believe that?

Do you not believe that God created male and female? do you not think that God created male and female to be united to one another?

Mathew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Christ brings up Genesis here and insures us that in the beginning God created male and female, therefore it’s not an idea that has been wildly exaggerated or something through the old testament, it must be accurate otherwise why would Christ have brought it up?

We’ve already been round this before - I’m still not alone, there are still plenty of Christians who do not believe in a designer god, and sorry it’s still off-topic.

I see fornication as Immoral and a harmful thing for society to advocate, just look at the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s.

Yet you’re against gay marriage.

*Also I think homosexuals should aim for chastity, in which myself being an unmarried heterosexual must also aim for the exact same thing, I would be annoyed if people tried to tell me that the only way for me to be happy was to fornicate or get married.

It’s frustrating when people think that happiness/joy is derived from appeasing sexual desires, that if you don’t appease sexual desires you will be miserable, because it’s not at all true, instead it’s the opposite, those who live to appease their sexual desires will find themselves in a miserable state.*

You’re the one saying marriage is about sex, not me.

And on what basis do you think life-long chastity is a natural rather than unnatural state? I mean if it were in any sense natural and we were all celebate, humanity would die out pretty quick.

*I have no doubt that incestuous relationships can involve abuse, but not all of them. There are also heterosexual relationships that involve abuse.

There are also many studies that say the sexual acts of homosexuality are harmful and that such a lifestyle is harmful, but people ignore them or say that, that isn’t the case for all homosexuals in such a lifestyle, in which case I can easily say the same, that it isn’t the case for all of those in incestuous relationships.*

There are many studies which say that obesity and alcohol are harmful, so I assume you want to ban burgers and beer as well. Oh, and salt, too much salt is bad, ban salt. Oh, and some people get hit by cars, ban all automobiles.

Or are you only interested in the health and safety of the gay community and not concerned for the rest of us?

And I’m confused about why are you are trying to excuse incest, how does that help your case?

*Okay, my apologies, I meant I know that the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral because it’s the logic in the human anatomy of men and women, that only men and women are designed for one another.

When talking to someone non religious like Candide West, I must be careful to try and not use “designed” and keep it secular, but I think I am at an advantage with you inocente because you are christian, so surely you believe that men and women are “designed” for one another by God our creator. If being a Christian and you don’t think that men and women are “designed” for one another, than what is your view about the creation of men and women?*

Call me old fashioned but the twentieth century American idea of a designer god never caught on in my neck of the woods.

*True, marriage is about love, but like I said before it indirectly includes “love of eros.” To say that it doesn’t would be naive.

So same sex marriage is about advocating and normalising the sexual acts of homosexuality.*

If your second sentence were true, that would mean that all marriage in general is about advocating and normalizing sexual acts. Now be honest, did you really mean that?

 

[inocente]

Oh ****, haha, your right.

My apologies.

However we know that the old testament is not completely accurate, I’ll just focus on the new testament, in which Christ brings up Genesis and the fact that God created us male and female to be united to one another in such ways and really it makes sense doesn’t it?

Do you want to go there?

OK, so then if we know the OT is not completely accurate, we can be reasonably certain the NT isn’t either and thus focus on some other religion after safely throwing the entire bible in a round receptacle.



You might want to rethink that.

It makes sense that two men or two women are not physically designed for one another? to think that two men or two women are physically designed for one another in marriage would mean to through Gods creation of men and women out the window.

Men and women are not designed. QED

No. I don’t mean it like that, it’s the fact that we are all sinners, when the adulterer was brought infront of Jesus he said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and than he said “but don’t sin anymore” and the same thing applies here, he didn’t tell the adulterer that what she did was morally right or that she was still faithful in marriage.

OK, but you are saying there’s a sin involved and sorry I just can’t see any sin.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

We’ve already been round this before - I’m still not alone, there are still plenty of Christians who do not believe in a designer god, and sorry it’s still off-topic.

Yes, off topic, but worth a reply anyway.

If such Christians exist, they are delusional and would know that after reading the Grand Design of creation in Genesis.
**
OK, but you are saying there’s a sin involved and sorry I just can’t see any sin. **

Because you are willfully blind? There are many references in the OT and NT to the sinfulness of sodomy. You are obstinately blind to this.

 

[stewstew03]

Completely false, I’ll take it to be a mistake on your part rather than disingenuous.

Ad populum is a fallacious argument which concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. I didn’t do that now, did I? I didn’t claim incest is bad because there’s a taboo, I said “you have an impossible job trying to convince the vast majority of people that marriage should be open to any form of incest”.

Unlike an online debate, in the real world there are consequences to actions and as said many times now, the main problem with incest is the possibility of inbreeding, which produces offspring who suffer defects, infants who suffer and need to be cared for in the real world. Presumably that’s why the taboo against incest is so powerful.

The only case where inbreeding would be impossible is father-son or brother-brother relationships, but I think the taboo against incest is so powerful that you will not find any support for making them an exception, even though you may find it illogical.

But by all means stand in the middle of the mall and ask people to sign your petition to let fathers marry sons and brothers marry brothers, and if you get lots of signatures I’ll eat my hat.

Entiendo, inocente. You support the fundamental right of all adults to engage in consensual sexual activity… except when you don’t.

 

[Peter_Plato]

According to your strange logic, being drunk is essential to driving because governments legislate against drunk driving.

I’ve suggested before that if you tried to find the weaknesses in your own arguments before posting, you wouldn’t keep making these trivial mistakes.

This is a nonsense reply because having competency to control a vehicle is essential to driving which is why governments require potential licensees to undergo a road test to prove competency. Drinking alcohol reduces competency which is precisely why governments legislate against drinking and driving. Being drunk negates competency and being competent is the essential trait at issue. Once again, your twisted logic is the problem. You seem to have difficulties distinguishing key points from irrelevancies.

Why on earth would a negative (being drunk) ever be considered an essential and positive trait? Your so-called parallel does not even resemble my argument and yet you claim, based on this arcane connection you make that it is my weakness for not seeing things from your illogical perspective. Beware of straining at the gnat!

 

[inocente]

Entiendo, inocente. You support the fundamental right of all adults to engage in consensual sexual activity… except when you don’t.

Maybe English isn’t your first language or you need spectacles or something.

I never said I support it, I said I think the taboo against incest is so powerful that you will not find any support for making them an exception, even though you may find it illogical.

That means what it says. “You will not find any support” doesn’t mean I support it, it means “you will not find any support” amongst most people.

You can’t win games of misrepresenting me when everyone can still see the original post.

 

[stewstew03]

…

There are many studies which say that obesity and alcohol are harmful, so I assume you want to ban burgers and beer as well. Oh, and salt, too much salt is bad, ban salt. Oh, and some people get hit by cars, ban all automobiles.

Truly you have dizzying intellect. From this point forward, your nickname shall be Vizzini.

If I may summarize:

josh: “If you support homosexual marriage, you should also support incestuous marriage.”

Vizzini (formerly known as inocente): “Incest involves abuse, and laws that protect society from harm are good. Therefore, the rational thing to do is criminalize incest.”

josh: “Not all incestuous relationships involve abuse. Besides, some acts of homosexuality are harmful, but we decriminalized sodomy. Therefore, we should overturn adult incest laws because the underlying rationale is weak.”

Vizzini: “Oh, so you want to ban burgers, beer, salt, and automobiles because they are harmful?”

http://princessbrideforever.com/wp-content/gallery/moments/thumbs/thumbs_59_Vizzini1.jpg

Or are you only interested in the health and safety of the gay community and not concerned for the rest of us?

Yes, Vizzini, you’ve figured it out. Well done.

And I’m confused…

Acordado!

 

[stewstew03]

Maybe English isn’t your first language or you need spectacles or something.

Es obvio…?

I never said I support it, I said think the taboo against incest is so powerful that you will not find any support for making them an exception, even though you may find it illogical.

That means what it says. “You will not find any support” doesn’t mean I support it, it means “you will not find any support” amongst most people.

Right. Let’s look at this statement that made you so upset:

“You support the fundamental right of all adults to engage in consensual sexual activity… except when you don’t.”

So, now that you have read this a second time, do you understand what I’m saying? If not, send me a private message and I’ll explain, no need to embarrass yourself on this thread…

 

[inocente]

This is a nonsense reply because having competency to control a vehicle is essential to driving which is why governments require potential licensees to undergo a road test to prove competency. Drinking alcohol reduces competency which is precisely why governments legislate against drinking and driving. Being drunk negates competency and being competent is the essential trait at issue. Once again, your twisted logic is the problem. You seem to have difficulties distinguishing key points from irrelevancies.

Why on earth would a negative (being drunk) ever be considered an essential and positive trait? Your so-called parallel does not even resemble my argument and yet you claim, based on this arcane connection you make that it is my weakness for not seeing things from your illogical perspective. Beware of straining at the gnat!

Incest risks the death and disability of offspring and so society wishes to discourage it, just as drunk driving risks the death or disability of others and so society wishes to discourage it.

You tried to argue that procreation must be essential to marriage because society wishes to discourage incest.

Can you really not see that it doesn’t follow?

It’s not just me who doesn’t go for your argument, it’s every place where gay marriage is legal: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, Mexico in DF, QR, United States in CT, DC, DE, IA, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, WA and 3 tribal jurisdictions.

(List from Wikipedia).

 

[PRmerger]

1. Argue that infertile heterosexual couples cannot marry (a position that seems contrary to the views of most Catholics and indeed the church itself).

Yes–that is indeed contrary to the reasonings presented by the Church. Catholicism understands that infertile heterosexual marital acts are still ordered towards procreation, while homosexual acts are never ordered towards procreation.