mattskramer
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #61
I am tied of the debate here concerning gay marriage. I am not admitting victory or defeat. The arguments and counter-arguments are becoming redundant. The rebuttals and replies to the rebuttals are also getting old. In summary:
I think that gay marriage should be legalized. I have explained that an adult heterosexual is allowed to get married to the person he or she loves (a person of the same sex) while an adult homosexual is not allowed to get married to a person he or she loves (a person of the opposite sex). Due to this inconsistency, I see it as an equal rights issue and if the government is going to recognize heterosexual marriage I see no reason not to have the state or federal government regognize/authorize/legalize gay marriage.
I have heard and responded to (rebutted) the arguments opposing gay marriage:
(1.) Homosexuality is a choice.
(A.) The very reason why one is a homosexual is debatable. There may be a genetic influence. One might be naturally (or inclined to be) a homosexual just as one may prefer to use his left hand more often than his right hand. Since "handedness" is a choice should we make restrictions for the minority who are left-handed?
(B.) Even if homosexuality is a choice, it is not a reason to not allow gay marriage. It used to be understood that people having different religious views were not to get married. I doubt that anyone would recommend that interfaith marriages be outlawed today. Just because someone believes or behaves a certain way (by choice or design) (as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedoms of others) is no reason to prohibit him from getting married.
I have yet to see a reply to my rebuttal. It looks as though the "interfaith" element is overlooked or ignored.
(2.) Marriage is a holy union.
This assumes much and can be rebutted in many ways. It assumes that God exists and that God ordains marriage. Some marriages are done without a reference to God. The holiness of a marriage is determined by those in the marriage. For some couples, a wedding amounts to little more than a function of the state.
There has been no clear and solid reply to my rebuttal.
(3.) Marriage is for the raising of children.
Not necessarily. One can have a child and not be married. One can be married and not have a child. There are sperm banks and surrogate mothers for the couples (heterosexual or homosexual) who can't have children of their own.
Again, there has been no clear and solid reply to my rebuttal.
(4.) Marriage always been between one man and one woman. Most people (and/or states) oppose gay marriage.
So? Just because something has been limited in some fashion for a long time, does not justify that limitation. People have been unnecessarily limited by law or societal "understanding" for long periods of time. Time does not justify continuing the limitation. Though our founding fathers, and general public, made some good decisions, they also made some bad decisions. The majority has been wrong before.
OCA's reply amounts to: Well, the majority is right this time.
(5.) Homosexuality is abnormal or unnatural, and immoral
These are three of my favorite irrelevant arguments. They are so similar that I chose to combine them. Many behaviors and activities are not "normal". Yet they need not be outlawed. It is not normal for people to go out in 115 degree temperature wearing multiple layers of clothing and a winter jacket. Should we outlaw such behavior?
Just because something is not natural is not a reason to keep it illegal. Should we outlaw synthetic fibers or medical drugs? Should we outlaw the hanging of glasses on the bridge of one's nose? Should we outlaw headstands? Cigarette smoking - Yuck. What is natural about putting a paper tube of smoldering leaves in your mouth? Let's outlaw it.
Terms such as immoral, disgusting, and the like are all subjective. Some things that one may find "yucky" some may find "pleasant". One person may consider an activity to be immoral and another person might find nothing wrong with it - and vice versa. People use different standards when explaining why they think that certain things as right and wrong. Some people use "natural law". Some people use the Bible. Some people use different books or religious teachings. Some people use their own feelings. Some people use logic. Some people use different sociopolitical philosophies. Some people simply go with what is popular (or unpopular) and some people use secular humanism.
OCA's reply amounts to: Oh, that is just silly
(6.) The Bible opposes it.
(A.) The Bible opposes many things. Those who argue based on the Bible seem to hold no objection to interracial marriage though it is condemned in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah. They also don't object to interfaith marriage or marriages for those who have been divorced though it is criticized in 2nd Corinthians and John and Matthew. If we are to continue to keep gay marriage illegal because the Bible says that it is wrong, it is right to apply all Biblical instruction concerning marriage (and other civil activities) to the state.
(B.) Even if the Bible is valid, there are Atheists and Agnostics. It is not obligated that people believe the Bible. Even for those who believe the Bible, they may choose to not follow its teachings. They may choose damnation.
NewGuy continued to try to get me to debate Bible validity. I finally did but it is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.
I have made my point and supported it. I have read the arguments against it. I have rebutted the arguments. My rebuttals have been met with comments that amount to: Oh that is just silly and challenges to prove that the Bible is invalid. Unless I read of some new unique and insightful argument explaining why gay marriage should not be allowed, I don't plan on making any more comments on the subject of gay marriage.
I think that gay marriage should be legalized. I have explained that an adult heterosexual is allowed to get married to the person he or she loves (a person of the same sex) while an adult homosexual is not allowed to get married to a person he or she loves (a person of the opposite sex). Due to this inconsistency, I see it as an equal rights issue and if the government is going to recognize heterosexual marriage I see no reason not to have the state or federal government regognize/authorize/legalize gay marriage.
I have heard and responded to (rebutted) the arguments opposing gay marriage:
(1.) Homosexuality is a choice.
(A.) The very reason why one is a homosexual is debatable. There may be a genetic influence. One might be naturally (or inclined to be) a homosexual just as one may prefer to use his left hand more often than his right hand. Since "handedness" is a choice should we make restrictions for the minority who are left-handed?
(B.) Even if homosexuality is a choice, it is not a reason to not allow gay marriage. It used to be understood that people having different religious views were not to get married. I doubt that anyone would recommend that interfaith marriages be outlawed today. Just because someone believes or behaves a certain way (by choice or design) (as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedoms of others) is no reason to prohibit him from getting married.
I have yet to see a reply to my rebuttal. It looks as though the "interfaith" element is overlooked or ignored.
(2.) Marriage is a holy union.
This assumes much and can be rebutted in many ways. It assumes that God exists and that God ordains marriage. Some marriages are done without a reference to God. The holiness of a marriage is determined by those in the marriage. For some couples, a wedding amounts to little more than a function of the state.
There has been no clear and solid reply to my rebuttal.
(3.) Marriage is for the raising of children.
Not necessarily. One can have a child and not be married. One can be married and not have a child. There are sperm banks and surrogate mothers for the couples (heterosexual or homosexual) who can't have children of their own.
Again, there has been no clear and solid reply to my rebuttal.
(4.) Marriage always been between one man and one woman. Most people (and/or states) oppose gay marriage.
So? Just because something has been limited in some fashion for a long time, does not justify that limitation. People have been unnecessarily limited by law or societal "understanding" for long periods of time. Time does not justify continuing the limitation. Though our founding fathers, and general public, made some good decisions, they also made some bad decisions. The majority has been wrong before.
OCA's reply amounts to: Well, the majority is right this time.
(5.) Homosexuality is abnormal or unnatural, and immoral
These are three of my favorite irrelevant arguments. They are so similar that I chose to combine them. Many behaviors and activities are not "normal". Yet they need not be outlawed. It is not normal for people to go out in 115 degree temperature wearing multiple layers of clothing and a winter jacket. Should we outlaw such behavior?
Just because something is not natural is not a reason to keep it illegal. Should we outlaw synthetic fibers or medical drugs? Should we outlaw the hanging of glasses on the bridge of one's nose? Should we outlaw headstands? Cigarette smoking - Yuck. What is natural about putting a paper tube of smoldering leaves in your mouth? Let's outlaw it.
Terms such as immoral, disgusting, and the like are all subjective. Some things that one may find "yucky" some may find "pleasant". One person may consider an activity to be immoral and another person might find nothing wrong with it - and vice versa. People use different standards when explaining why they think that certain things as right and wrong. Some people use "natural law". Some people use the Bible. Some people use different books or religious teachings. Some people use their own feelings. Some people use logic. Some people use different sociopolitical philosophies. Some people simply go with what is popular (or unpopular) and some people use secular humanism.
OCA's reply amounts to: Oh, that is just silly
(6.) The Bible opposes it.
(A.) The Bible opposes many things. Those who argue based on the Bible seem to hold no objection to interracial marriage though it is condemned in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah. They also don't object to interfaith marriage or marriages for those who have been divorced though it is criticized in 2nd Corinthians and John and Matthew. If we are to continue to keep gay marriage illegal because the Bible says that it is wrong, it is right to apply all Biblical instruction concerning marriage (and other civil activities) to the state.
(B.) Even if the Bible is valid, there are Atheists and Agnostics. It is not obligated that people believe the Bible. Even for those who believe the Bible, they may choose to not follow its teachings. They may choose damnation.
NewGuy continued to try to get me to debate Bible validity. I finally did but it is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.
I have made my point and supported it. I have read the arguments against it. I have rebutted the arguments. My rebuttals have been met with comments that amount to: Oh that is just silly and challenges to prove that the Bible is invalid. Unless I read of some new unique and insightful argument explaining why gay marriage should not be allowed, I don't plan on making any more comments on the subject of gay marriage.
