So is it impossible to argue against same-sex marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larowyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, here is an opinion piece by Orson Scott Card which is quite relevant to the subject.

Here is one by Rod Dreher

And here are the books I mentioned previously:

The Meaning of Marriage

Family and Civilization

Those are good essays and books with compelling analyses of the facts. However, it is probably already be too late to save Western Civilization.
 
Orson Scott Card is anti-gay? Until l found that essay I only knew him as a science fiction writer. And he mentions homosexual friends in the essay. And as far as I know, the Zimmernam book is a civilizational study of families, nothing anti-gay about it.
 
Anything that disproves or argues against homosexuality is homophobic and considered hate speech, apparently.
 
Larowyn said:
Anything that disproves or argues against homosexuality is homophobic and considered hate speech, apparently.
Click to expand...
Yes. So much of what passes for discussion in this area simply involves the equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum to overpower mom’s reasoning. The essence of the argument is
“NO! I want what I want!”
 
I think it is impossible to argue against gay marriage because the country seems to recognize marriage as a right of individuals just like freedom of expression, not as a union to produce children, or a sanctified union.

So many hetero couples purposefully refrain from reproducing that it has become silly to use the argument that producing children has anything to do with it.

Scientific evidence seems to lead to a genetic basis for homosexuality so you can’t really argue that they can "change"without making the case that they SHOULD, something frowned upon in society now.

There would need to be research done to document negative effects on children of homosexual unions or some other mainstream study demonstrating other negative consequences for most of the country to care much about the issue. It seems like civil unions are what most people are willing to actually accept, even those who are religious.

I think a huge change in the culture’s view of sex and marriage is the only way to even set up a situation where an honest debate on the issue could even take place at this point. The mainstream culture has already redefined normal healthy sexuality and relationships, so any argument had now is forced into their paradigm.

I have not found any effective way to convince anyone of an opposing view that same sex marriage is wrong. Without a common acceptance of the religious underpinnings, I think it’s impossible.
 
HelenaMT said:
I think it is impossible to argue against gay marriage because the country seems to recognize marriage as a right of individuals just like freedom of expression, not as a union to produce children, or a sanctified union.

So many hetero couples purposefully refrain from reproducing that it has become silly to use the argument that producing children has anything to do with it.

Scientific evidence seems to lead to a genetic basis for homosexuality so you can’t really argue that they can "change"without making the case that they SHOULD, something frowned upon in society now.

There would need to be research done to document negative effects on children of homosexual unions or some other mainstream study demonstrating other negative consequences for most of the country to care much about the issue. It seems like civil unions are what most people are willing to actually accept, even those who are religious.

I think a huge change in the culture’s view of sex and marriage is the only way to even set up a situation where an honest debate on the issue could even take place at this point. The mainstream culture has already redefined normal healthy sexuality and relationships, so any argument had now is forced into their paradigm.

I have not found any effective way to convince anyone of an opposing view that same sex marriage is wrong. Without a common acceptance of the religious underpinnings, I think it’s impossible.
Click to expand...
The article buffalo posted is very helpful to that end.
 
Homosexual marriage is an impossibility because there is no total self-giving of the spouses to each other in the marital embrace.
Read Theology of the Body.

It is not ever even potentially fruitful.They are not providing future citizens who will carry on the work and culture of the country. Only through adoption or some immoral means, do they obtain a few children. Then these children become basket cases

Children need a mom and a dad in order to have the best potential to in order to grow up emotionally and socially whole. Children have great problems who grow up in homosexual households.
 
Leeta said:
Homosexual marriage is an impossibility because there is no total self-giving of the spouses to each other in the marital embrace.
Read Theology of the Body.

It is not ever even potentially fruitful.They are not providing future citizens who will carry on the work and culture of the country. Only through adoption or some immoral means, do they obtain a few children. Then these children become basket cases

Children need a mom and a dad in order to have the best potential to in order to grow up emotionally and socially whole. Children have great problems who grow up in homosexual households.
Click to expand...
If you go back and read previous posts, I can’t use religious arguments. Also they swear up and down that homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents and have studies to show it.
 
HelenaMT said:
I think it is impossible to argue against gay marriage because the country seems to recognize marriage as a right of individuals just like freedom of expression, not as a union to produce children, or a sanctified union.

So many hetero couples purposefully refrain from reproducing that it has become silly to use the argument that producing children has anything to do with it.

Scientific evidence seems to lead to a genetic basis for homosexuality so you can’t really argue that they can "change"without making the case that they SHOULD, something frowned upon in society now.

There would need to be research done to document negative effects on children of homosexual unions or some other mainstream study demonstrating other negative consequences for most of the country to care much about the issue. It seems like civil unions are what most people are willing to actually accept, even those who are religious.

I think a huge change in the culture’s view of sex and marriage is the only way to even set up a situation where an honest debate on the issue could even take place at this point. The mainstream culture has already redefined normal healthy sexuality and relationships, so any argument had now is forced into their paradigm.

I have not found any effective way to convince anyone of an opposing view that same sex marriage is wrong. Without a common acceptance of the religious underpinnings, I think it’s impossible.
Click to expand...
That’s the whole thing in a nutshell. For those who follow a religion that does not sanction homosexual marriage, there will be no explanation that would get them to accept that it should exist. For those who do not follow such a religion, there will be no explanation that will get them to accept that it should not.
 
There is plenty of research. Homosexual activists just won’t believe it.

For a good summary of the argument against gay marriage, read the Orson Scott Card essay.

For a comprehensive treatment of marriage and civilization, read these books:

The Meaning of Marriage edited by Robert George and Jean Bethke Elshtain

Family and Civilization by Carle C. Zimmerman, recently republished.

Of course gay activists will not believe the research. They want to do what they want to do, and civilization be damned.
 
Larowyn said:
Very helpful, as long as no one discovers the link. It doesn’t cover the observation of homosexuality in animals that they are arguing now, though.
Click to expand...
Homosexuality in animals? If they want to compare themselves to animals then let them, but we are not animals. I’ve been around dogs that will hump whatever is in front of them, including the couch!:eek:
 
Larowyn said:
Very helpful, as long as no one discovers the link. It doesn’t cover the observation of homosexuality in animals that they are arguing now, though.
Click to expand...
That is an invalid argument for we have free-will and are not lower order animals. Animals do not develop homosexual relationships, they instintively seek oppeortuinites and many do not discrimate.
 
I was away from the computer for quite some time, so while I was away my opponents were busy high-fiving each other at another victory for equal rights. I can’t go back and refute everything they’ve said since, so I decided to just sum up my arguments. Could someone give me an opinion before I submit it?
40.png
Larowyn:
Well I tried to explain why orientation was important, but it seems that everyone either doesn’t get it or doesn’t want to get it.

What I’m trying to explain is that homosexuality is not immutable but heterosexuality is. There’s no way around it; people were designed with a heterosexual reproductive system, not a homosexual one. People are oriented sexually towards different genders and may also be sexually oriented towards things that don’t require a specific gender. You could classify sexual orientation two ways: gender-specific (heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual attraction) and non gender-specific or “fetish” orientations (pain oriented, age oriented, animal oriented, etc). Sexual orientation is more than just what gender one is more attracted to.

Now with that in mind, one must consider why married couples have certain tax breaks and benefits that no other adult citizens have. Married couples are generally assumed to be planning to raise a family by conceiving children (though not all do), and those benefits and tax deductions are designed to make things easier for the parents. Homosexual couples do not have all of the required parts to produce their own children, therefore it’s incorrect to assume that they will produce their own children. If homosexuals had a homosexual reproductive system, then they would also need those benefits for raising children.

Everyone here arguing against me operates under the assumption that homosexuality is natural, but the burden of proof is on you. We can already easily prove that heterosexuality is natural based on the presence of the heterosexual reproductive system, but we cannot prove that there is a “gay gene” anymore than we can prove that homosexuality is a conscious choice. Homosexuality is of an as yet unknown genesis and there is no study that can p(name removed by moderator)oint that genesis beyond the shadow of a doubt, so there is no way that anyone can say for certain that it is natural. Because of this, there is no way that homosexuality and heterosexuality on their own can be equal, though heterosexual and homosexual people themselves are.

The homosexual movement now denies homosexuality as strictly behavior based, and this comes from Bowers v Hardwick in 1986, a Supreme Court case that decided that states had a constitutional right to regulate homosexual acts. Before 1986, homosexuality was defined universally as same-gender sexual conduct and a homosexual was someone who engaged in such conduct. After Bowers v Hardwick, the gay movement decided to push to make homosexuality eligible for minority status as a suspect class to gain constitutional protection. This required that the group have a history of discrimination, are powerless to help themselves, and are defined by immutable characteristics. The problem is that the gay movement cannot prove that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable and there is no conclusive evidence to support this. Why not? Simply because there is no objective means of determining whether someone is homosexual or not; DNA or blood testing will not determine it, we can only rely on a person’s own claim to be homosexual or not.

Why is immutability so important? Because if it is not immutable, it must be acquired. The gay movement has to bear the burden of proof to support the hypothesis that homosexuality is immutable, not society, and until the gay movement can prove this, the claim that homosexuals are born that way is simply a hypothesis.
Click to expand...
 
JimG said:
Orson Scott Card is anti-gay? Until l found that essay I only knew him as a science fiction writer. And he mentions homosexual friends in the essay. And as far as I know, the Zimmernam book is a civilizational study of families, nothing anti-gay about it.
Click to expand...
Everything that isn’t stridently pro-homosexual is ‘anti-gay.’ Even the words ‘traditional family,’ which the Ninth Circus Court ruled as hate speech. 🤷
 
Ana said:
I think they should go ahead and be allowed to get married. But they need to give up on The Church sanctioning such marriages. It ain’t gonna happen. The Church doesn’t make laws according to popular vote. If you want same sex marriage to succeed, you are barking up the wrong tree to expect the Church to compromise herself. Stick to the legislative arena. If the reason they are looking for Church approval, is because they are looking for God’s approval, then I don’t know what to say. I don’t see how the Bible can be more clear about homosexual relationships. Can’t they read?
Click to expand...
"Can’t they read? " Can you?! And assuming that you can, the next question is can you study? Anybody can read a translation, expecially one that’s biased towards a certain postion, even a false one. And as posts on these forums reveal, not everyone is willing to study God’s word to the point of testing it’s truths; especially if it isn’t them whose being wrongfully and unscripturally condemed.
 
What I’m trying to explain is that homosexuality is not immutable but heterosexuality is. There’s no way around it; people were designed with a heterosexual reproductive system, not a homosexual one.
Click to expand...
If you’re only talking about reproduction, then I would agree. Members of the same gender cannot reproduce without assistance.

However, a union or a marriage between two people is not ONLY about reproduction. Millions of people join together in marriages and unions all over the world without any intention whatsoever of reproducing. The commitments between those people is no less valid than the commitments between people who have joined together and had children.

Of course, from a religious standpoint reproduction is the most important reason for marriage. How would any religion grow if reproduction was not encouraged in that way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top