Selected lame gay "marriage" cliches refuted

[sw85]

I woke up extremely early and couldn’t get back to sleep. So I got on the computer and saw this video pop up in my Facebook feed, linked by a friend. It consists of a terminally nervous, twitchy, hollow-chested hipster with fashionable glasses burbling in defense of the flatulent ontological error we call gay “marriage.” As I am tired, cranky, and have time to kill, here is a studied fisking of selected remarks extracted from the video, which is pretty extraordinarily stupid even by the extremely low standards gay “marriage” advocates have set for themselves.

First, a quick comment on the style. “Hey, everyone, look at me, I’m cynical!” is objectively extremely played-out and subjectively extremely annoying. Why do people keep doing it? I assume because, for some of them at least, they just aren’t sufficiently deep thinkers to realize style is not a substitute for, well, deep thought. It’s called picking up a book some time and reading it, dude, and something more substantial than Finnegan’s Wake or Zooey Deschanel’s autobiography. Surely you can find the time to read while waiting for the janitor to let you out of the locker you got stuffed into for being a gigantic wuss. Second, am I the only one utterly impressed (in the sense that it “makes an impression” on me, not that I enjoy seeing it) by the utter unmanliness of this person? He waves his arms and sneers and his voice reaches nearly-falsetto highs in defense of gay sex. He carries on like a freaking sob sister. Pfeh.

Anyway, here we go:

Opposing gay marriage is not a viewpoint that I understand.

Don’t let that stop you from mouthing off about it, though, bro.

This isn’t a political issue, it’s just deciding that we’re going to treat some citizens of our country differently than other citizens. That’s wrong!

Which maybe would make sense if you began with the predicate “It’s always and everywhere wrong to treat any anyone differently than anyone else for any reason.” But who believes that? It’s obvious nonsense, but I suppose the fact that it’s stupid won’t stop from embracing it in order to appease homosexuals.

I mean come on. On what grounds do we now justify the claim that treating dissimilar groups dissimilarly is a bad thing, given that we do it all the time in both our personal and social lives?

Here he proceeds to characterize a number of anti-gay marriage arguments he’s heard.

“1. What’s the big deal? Why can’t gay people just, you know, have a party and say they’re committed to each other? Why do they gotta come in on our thing?”

Irrelevant! This isn’t complicated, if some people can get married, and other people can’t, then that’s wrong!

Surely we can all see that this principle is obviously wrong and, rigorously applied, would lead to extreme social absurdity and moral evils none of us would willingly tolerate.

Some burbling about religious arguments, separation of church/state, etc.

Well, he won’t get an argument from me that evangelicals aren’t generally the brightest.

But the separation of church/state thing always interests me because it calls to mind the fact that most of these people have no idea what the plain wording of the Constitution actually is. Consider the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”

OK, what does that mean? Establishment means the acknowledging of one church as possessing divine truth. The Anglican Church is the established church of England. This is forbidden in the United States – there is no Church of America. It has no official religion. That’s pretty much the extent of it. It doesn’t follow that laws cannot be promulgated on the basis of the moral or religious sensibility of the people, that people cannot vote their conscience, etc. This is a lie with no foundation.

It is, moreover, a deeply hypocritical lie. As I demonstrate here, these pro-gay “marriage” arguments inevitably ALWAYS reduce to utilitarianism, the preferred ethical system of the left, according to which good is that which maximizes pleasure. In other words, they don’t object to “legislating morality.” They object to legislating non-utilitarian morality, i.e., any moral system that isn’t their moral system. It is stealth establishment of a false religion with Jeremy Bentham as its prophet. To Hell with it – literally.

 

[sw85]

“3. Gay marriage would undermine the institution of marriage.”

What does this sentiment mean? It doesn’t occur to Bowl Cut to ask this question. Being a consequentialist, he interprets the sentiment to mean “Gay marriage would produce outcomes that are bad for institutional marriage.” He thus does the typical leftist point-and-stutter "Bbbbbbbbut Brittney Spears!!! " sort of thing. (The logic presumably goes:

1. Heterosexual divorce rate is high.
2. … ???
3. Therefore gay marriage.)

Of course this isn’t what we mean, and it should be fairly obvious. After all, the divorce statistics are available to us, too, so if that’s what we meant, it would be equally obvious to us that it’s false. But that isn’t what is meant, hence why we keep making the argument. Like the kids say, duh.

So what do we mean? Let’s compare the two attitudes.

The Catholic attitude (and the attitude of the more knowledgeable conservative types): “Human nature is such that we are male and female – that is, explicitly sexual creatures – and these sexual differences order our beings toward a natural end: the end of procreation. Sex is the natural language of this end. Through the sexual act, man says to woman: ‘I choose you to be the mother of my children.’ And woman likewise says to man: ‘I choose you to be the father of my children.’ This is true even if they desire not to have children. Our bodies, and the actions arising from it, are charged with meaning, and that meaning is present whether we like it or not, just as surely as a man who declares he is loyal to his wife is proved a liar by virtue of his cheating on her. From this natural language, marriage arises organically and spontaneously, an enduring bond of commitment that allows them to act out the logical consequences of the act and the promise made, implicitly or explicitly, through it.”

In other words, marriage is a fact arising from our natures, a thing that cannot be changed; a thing endowed with meaning by virtue of the order of being of which we are a part.

The leftist attitude: “Marriage is just another contract people should be free to enter into for any reason or none at all, and terminate at will.”

Get that? The leftist attitude is that marriage is just another contract, of nothing but conventional significance, no more important to operations of society than a manufacturer’s warranty on an old air conditioner.

THAT is what we mean when we say embracing gay “marriage” is harmful to “marriage”: it embraces the idea that marriage is not a matter of status but of contract. And by the way, THAT is the sentiment that gave us Brittney Spears’ 30-minute, drive-thru McMarriage.

Finally, we get to the nadir:

“4. It’s unnatural!”

Here again, I anticipated the typical embarrasing leftist misapprehension and was richly rewarded for my intuition. Because here again, leftists misapprehend what is meant by “natural.”

Notice that he opens this counterargument by saying “We build our worlds – we build the rules of the world that we live in.” Get that? There is nothing but the human will and whatever the human will wills for itself.

Obviously, we regard that sentiment as false. The natural world is a real and powerful force whether you like it or not, and no amount of willing can make it otherwise. For anyone who doubts this, I invite you to test it by hurling yourself off the Empire State Building and willing yourself to fly.

The idea of man as a self-actualizing, totally autonomous ubermensch is a characteristically leftist idea. Like most such ideas, it’s also an obviously false one.

The rules are imposed on us from above. The order of being is not a democracy but a monarchy: the rules are made without your consent. You can choose to break them, but you cannot choose to remake them. As I said above, our bodies are charged with meaning, and we get no say in that. To say that heterosexual sex is “natural” and homosexual sex “unnatural,” then, is simply to say that the former is consistent with human nature and the latter not. The reproductive system is, after all, the “reproductive” system, not the utilitarian pleasure-myself system. It is naturally ordered toward reproduction: that is its natural function and natural language, and pleasure (and unity) arise as a second-order effect from that function, without which there would be no reason for sex to be any more pleasurable than a handshake.

Notice there is another implicit assumption buried in this: that the universe is a chaos, random, incoherent, undiscernable, etc. This is what he means when he says “The world is gray” (an assertion, not an argument) and that nothing is that simple. I’ve addressed this before elsewhere on these forums, and identified it in the past as a kind of “spiritual autism.” The leftist cannot make sense of the world on its own terms, and therefore cannot experience the order of being as a sacred thing. The only thing he can be sure exists is himself and his desires. Therefore his desires are king. This principle, rigorously applied, also degenerates instantly into lunacy. The solution, therefore, is not to apply it rigorously – indeed, not to apply it at all.

Why do we consent to let palpable, ignorant misfits like this run society? That is something I will never understand.

He concludes with an appeal to equality before the law (which, bear in mind, is perfectly present under a heteronormative scheme – the law holds heterosexuals and homosexuals to exactly the same standard) and proposition nationalism (he declares that “we can’t live in a society [that recognizes heternormative marriage] and call ourselves Americans.” Get that, folks? The first 225 years of Americans, including the Founders, aren’t American because they don’t endorse state-subsidized sodomy).

Oh, perspective.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Why do we consent to let palpable, ignorant misfits like this run society? That is something I will never understand.

Because the powers that be wrap the argument in a pretty bow and promise the masses free condoms?

 

[MarcoPolo]

You did a good job, by the way. A little flippant for my taste, but I can see the strength of your argument. On the issue of “if some people can get married, and other people can’t, then that’s wrong!” wouldn’t a good reply be: “Everyone can get married. None of us can ‘marry’ someone of the same gender though. There’s no such thing. It’s like demanding we allow natural male pregnancy. You can’t do it and neither can I.”

 

[Perplexity]

I won’t mention the other claims you’ve made either because I agree with you, or even if I disagree, I don’t hold the position and have no interest in defending it.

The Catholic attitude (and the attitude of the more knowledgeable conservative types): “Human nature is such that we are male and female – that is, explicitly sexual creatures – and these sexual differences order our beings toward a natural end: the end of procreation. Sex is the natural language of this end. Through the sexual act, man says to woman: ‘I choose you to be the mother of my children.’ And woman likewise says to man: ‘I choose you to be the father of my children.’ This is true even if they desire not to have children. Our bodies, and the actions arising from it, are charged with meaning, and that meaning is present whether we like it or not, just as surely as a man who declares he is loyal to his wife is proved a liar by virtue of his cheating on her. From this natural language, marriage arises organically and spontaneously, an enduring bond of commitment that allows them to act out the logical consequences of the act and the promise made, implicitly or explicitly, through it.”

The argument forecast for this piece wouldn’t have read well: scattered assertions, with a chance of validity.

This whole theology of the body, inherently meaningful body language stuff assumes semantic externalism (SE). A lot of us consider that incoherent babble, so to convince us it even gets out of the gate, you’ll have to do some fancy SE tap dancing.

But, even granting SE, this argument aspires to bear far more weight than its resources can support. The male and female sexes aren’t some peculiarity to the human species. They’re found in pretty much…every species. By your reasoning, their sexual differences order their beings toward a natural end: the end of procreation. Sex is the natural language of this end. Since the act of sex itself is what communicates the proposition “I choose you to be the mother of my children” etc., those engaging in that sexual act needn’t understand this. (Just one more reason not to adopt SE lol). So, apparently, by virtue of the proposition’s being communicated through this body language, pretty much every member of every species gets married, commits adultery, and is homosexual. Super. To avoid this, you’ll have to drop SE, and with it, this entire argument against homosexual marriage.

I’d also like to point out that you made one heckuva jump from “I want you to be the mother of my children” (etc.) to marriage. Even granting the highly suspect idea that the act of sex is what communicates this proposition, nothing about the relationship between the partners follows from this.

To say that heterosexual sex is “natural” and homosexual sex “unnatural,” then, is simply to say that the former is consistent with human nature and the latter not. The reproductive system is, after all, the “reproductive” system, not the utilitarian pleasure-myself system. It is naturally ordered toward reproduction: that is its natural function and natural language, and pleasure (and unity) arise as a second-order effect from that function, without which there would be no reason for sex to be any more pleasurable than a handshake.

I’ve already pointed out several silly things that follow from the application of SE to human body language. But, Naturall Law Ethics have always struck me as ridiculous. Let’s just grant that heterosexual sex is natural, and homosexual sex is unnatural. So what? The only way it’s morally wrong to contradict the telos is if we have a moral obligation not to contradict the telos. But, how could you possibly show that we have a moral obligation not to contradict a telos? Note, we can’t appeal to God, 'cause that’s a different natural law theory than the one proposed as a moral basis for legislation against homosexual marriages. Nope, you’ve gotta do this the hard way, and good luck, you’ll need it!

 

[Perplexity]

In fact…the more I think about it, the worse it gets. Since the agent’s intentions are irrelevant to what proposition gets communicated through the act of sex, how are we to know which proposition in fact gets communicated? You asserted two, but I can’t imagine how you’d justify that.

And, if you argue (as I’d be disappointed if you didn’t) that the propositions you mentioned are only communicated through the act of “human” sex, what proposition gets communicated through non-human sex? At least for animals of higher intelligence? Their different genders orient them toward a natural end: procreation. Sex is the natural language etc. etc.

 

[62Joy]

I just want to comment on one of the arguments given against gay marriage.

“4. It’s unnatural!”

The word “unnatural” means to me - something not natural. Something against nature.

Being in my 70’s, I also remember back during the civil rights era when that same word was used to defend segregation in parts of this country and later as an arguing point against interracial marriage.

A percentage of every country on the planet is homosexual, and has been throughout history.
There is homosexual behavior in animals as well.

My question is how can something that is natural in nature be “unnatural”?

I see it as just another form of prejudice that has to be overcome. And if we feel these people are “different” and should therefore be called to a different life than the rest of us because of how God made them…shame on us!

 

[Myqyl]

Something I always consider is that when I was born (53 years ago) my marriage would have been illegal in most states. I’m white and my wife isn’t. It was unnatural and against the Will of God.

I thank God that the times have changed… sort of… to a degree…

God bless

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Marriage is limited to more than just consenting heterosexual adults. If we allow gay marriage because gay people (most of them) can’t help who they are attracted too then we better let adults marry children if they are old enough to know what sex is and consent to it. I mean most pedophiles can’t help the fact they are strongly attracted to children (bare in mind the uncontrollable attraction is the only correlation I’m tieing between pedophilia and homosexuality, I’m not saying one leads to the other). Or for siblings who love one another who want to marry. We have laws in place to prevent that (and pedophilia) because it’s disgusting and unnatural. Well a couple decades ago the disordered attraction known as homosexuality was amongst these groups and rightly so. If we allow people who are disordered with homosexual inclinations to marry for the sole sake of appeasing their sense of equality, than we better open the doors for child-adult marriages and incestuous relationships as well. If not then we’re just being exclusive of other groups that should be “equally” protected just as the homosexuals were.

 

[Armyvet007]

“This isn’t a political issue…”

This moron [labeled such due to his lack of basic understanding of terms; not his views] needs to retake his high school civics course.

 

[sedonaman]

…

Anyway, here we go: [etc.]

…

This guy is living in the logic of Alice in Wonderland.

 

[Armyvet007]

Something I always consider is that when I was born (53 years ago) my marriage would have been illegal in most states. I’m white and my wife isn’t. It was unnatural and against the Will of God.

I thank God that the times have changed… sort of… to a degree…

God bless

The comparison doesn’t hold up to historical review. Homosexual marriages have never been a part of the social norm, interracial [or more correctly inter-ethnic] have been.

 

[Publisher]

I just want to comment on one of the arguments given against gay marriage.

“4. It’s unnatural!”

The word “unnatural” means to me - something not natural. Something against nature.

Being in my 70’s, I also remember back during the civil rights era when that same word was used to defend segregation in parts of this country and later as an arguing point against interracial marriage.

A percentage of every country on the planet is homosexual, and has been throughout history.
There is homosexual behavior in animals as well.

My question is how can something that is natural in nature be “unnatural”?

I see it as just another form of prejudice that has to be overcome. And if we feel these people are “different” and should therefore be called to a different life than the rest of us because of how God made them…shame on us!

Friend you speak my mind.

 

[Armyvet007]

I just want to comment on one of the arguments given against gay marriage.

“4. It’s unnatural!”

The word “unnatural” means to me - something not natural. Something against nature.

Being in my 70’s, I also remember back during the civil rights era when that same word was used to defend segregation in parts of this country and later as an arguing point against interracial marriage.

A percentage of every country on the planet is homosexual, and has been throughout history.
There is homosexual behavior in animals as well.

My question is how can something that is natural in nature be “unnatural”?

I see it as just another form of prejudice that has to be overcome. And if we feel these people are “different” and should therefore be called to a different life than the rest of us because of how God made them…shame on us!

So would you argue that laws against cannibalism, killing for something other then self defense or food, prostitution, sex with minors, infantcide, incest, etc are just another form of prejudice? All occur naturally in nature.

 

[Myqyl]

The comparison doesn’t hold up to historical review. Homosexual marriages have never been a part of the social norm, interracial [or more correctly inter-ethnic] have been.

That depends on the history books you choose I think… It seems to me that homosexuality was a social norm in the ancient Roman and Greek societies. And MANY societies (including American history prior to the late 1960’s) had always outlawed inter-ethnic couples. Could you explain where inter-ethnic couples were the social norm and homosexuals were not?

 

[HelenRose]

I just want to comment on one of the arguments given against gay marriage.

“4. It’s unnatural!”

The word “unnatural” means to me - something not natural. Something against nature.

Being in my 70’s, I also remember back during the civil rights era when that same word was used to defend segregation in parts of this country and later as an arguing point against interracial marriage.

A percentage of every country on the planet is homosexual, and has been throughout history.
There is homosexual behavior in animals as well.

My question is how can something that is natural in nature be “unnatural”?

I see it as just another form of prejudice that has to be overcome. And if we feel these people are “different” and should therefore be called to a different life than the rest of us because of how God made them…shame on us!

In a biology course in school, how do people of same sex attraction deal with Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” ?

Will people with same sex attraction want to change the wording of Darwin’s theory?

Evolution is contingent on opposite sexes coming together.

Same sex attraction may be found in nature but by its very nature (according to Darwin) is unfit and will eventually die out.

The children of inter-racial marriages demonstrate the very essence of “the fittest” The fittest genes are dominant. In Darwin’s logic this is the best of all worlds.

 

[NeedImprovement]

“. . . burbling in defense of the flatulent ontological error . . .”

FOCL

That line, in whatever genre you may happen to be applying it as a critique, is absolutely hilarious. Thanks for the badly needed smile.

To this -

“1. What’s the big deal? Why can’t gay people just, you know, have a party and say they’re committed to each other? Why do they gotta come in on our thing?”

. . . I would be compelled to reply, that albeit for indefinite intervals , active homosexuals were having parties and saying they were committed to, well, (sigh) ,whatever, way before gay -]marriage/-] ever showed up on the radar screen. And the marriage issue is distinct from its predecessor - the gay civil unions .So the values have been presented as totally inverted here – to place everything right-side up again: It is the gay militants who decided they had to *“come in on our thing” *. . .which is “marriage”. That would be the plain unadulterated truth of it.

Some burbling about religious arguments, separation of church/state, etc.

It really does make sense for burblers to get reading and get more educated. Separation of Church and State is a very sorely misunderstood and even more sorely misquoted concept in today’s society . That five-word phrase is becoming a four letter word – even to the author of its concept. And it rolls handily off the tongues of many of the “elite” in the public eye who abuse it.

What poorly guided militants fail to understand is not that the state was to have no religion, but that the state must not enforce any one religion – gay-] marriage /-]falls precisely into that category of being state enforced because it is creating widespread discrimination and persecution of religious freedom, freedom of conscience, of parents’ rights and of freedom of speech (particularly up here in the Great North where political correctness has become the state enforced religion . . . except, for some odd reason , there exists this quirk, that no one is obliged to be politically correct towards Christians . . . . . . go figure.)

Now to revisit “Separation of Church and State”, homosexual activists usually won’t tell you where ”Separation of Church and State” finds its roots of origin ( although I suspect that if they did, it might help explain the self inflicted wound they find in their foot each time they cry “Separation of Church and State”).

It was Thomas Jefferson, a Christian, who first conceived , formulated into words, the notion of “Separation of Church and State” .

And there are two sides of the coin to “Separation of Church and State” :

Excerpt from [ Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1st, 1802 :

](http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)“. . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, "

A few sentences ago, we just went through several things gay -]marriage/-] legislation and all these unnecessary equality laws threaten – One of them was that it **prohibits freedom of religion **guys. Our bishops were way ahead of the curve on that one and so , it appears, was Thomas Jefferson.

Before any burbler puts his sock back on just yet, he should take a second look, and not be overly surprised if he is able to detect a second self-inflicted wound in his foot as well, because the author of “Separation of Church and State” also said something else guys :

Now, I don’t mean to *cut anyone off * here, but the same man who gave us “Separation of Church and State” - Thomas Jefferson, also said he believed that the penalty for buggery should be castration.

Excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to To Edmund Pendleton, Philadelphia, Aug. 26, 1776

“Death might be inflicted for murder & perhaps for treason if you would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery &c – punish by castration. All other crimes by working on high roads, rivers, gallies &c. a certain time proportioned to the offence.”

 

[rfournier103]

On the natural/unnatural argument… If one wants to bring up interracial marriage, fine. But one needs to look at historical context. Interracial marriages were/are fairly common throughout history. There is not quite the taboo on it in other cultures as there is in white western culture. They served as a way to cement aliances, link royal families/nations, and the like.

Through human history, gay marriage has been qute taboo in almost every single culture, and every society that condoned it fell. And rather harshly. Ancient Greece and Rome, for example. Oddly enough, they don’t have the same acceptance of it today as in the ancient times.

Someone should ask, “why has homosexuality been taboo for so long?” Canibalism has had greater worldwide acceptance. Polygamy has had greater worldwide acceptance. There HAS to be a reason.

Also… homosexuality in the animal kingdom is not about love or attraction, it is about dominance. The same goes for inmates in a prison. Some inmates may be homosexual, but not THAT many. I’ve had several classes in Corrections as part of my undergrad study.

Lastly… the OP may have been a little flippant in his responses, but I like someone on our side of the debate to have a little fire in his belly. Good for him!

PS: Congrats on your coming into the Church, sw85! Welcome aboard!

 

[scipio337]

That depends on the history books you choose I think… It seems to me that homosexuality was a social norm in the ancient Roman and Greek societies. And MANY societies (including American history prior to the late 1960’s) had always outlawed inter-ethnic couples. Could you explain where inter-ethnic couples were the social norm and homosexuals were not?

Actually, outside of Nazi Germany, the US, and South Africa, laws against inter racial marriage are historically exceedingly rare.

Interracial bans were not part of the English Common Law we inherited.

Anti-miscegenation laws were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing.

This is a continuing apples and rutabas comparison.

Historically laws banning interracial marriages are very rare. Laws accepting same sex “marriages” are very few.

 

[sedonaman]

…
Now, I don’t mean to *cut anyone off * here, but the same man who gave us “Separation of Church and State” - Thomas Jefferson, also said he believed that the penalty for buggery should be castration.

George Washington wasn’t so harsh. From “The Writings of George Washington From The Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799;” John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor:

“Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.”

theamericanview.com/index.php?id=761