How do you make a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage rights? Greg answered that on a recent radio show.
Comments
Well done.
Heterosexual behavior contributes to society in a way that homosexual behavior can't - regardless of whether or not homosexual behavior is right or wrong.
State marriage licensing is done on behalf of the people of a state for the benefit of the state, not so that two people can get hospital visitation for each other. If that really is a problem, then hospitals can address that without neutering state marriage licensing.
Alec Baldwin argues that if marriage is for relationships prone to procreation so that if a heterosexual couple doesn't want to have or can not have children, they shouldn't be allowed to marry on those grounds
In general, heterosexual relationships (of a marriage type) will procreate, whether they want to or not, due to the non-zero failure rate of all birth control methods.
Very few of those relationships will not procreate, either due to infertility or a combination of will and blind luck. That's a small enough fraction that it isn't practical to institute some sort of invasive check on a couple's fertility. The same requirement for a check does not hold for same-sex relationships.
This article gives a new wrinkle to the whole debate- we need gay marriage so we can have gay divorce! (Not to threadjack- it's just the strangest argument I've ever heard in this debate.)
The problem with same sex marriage is that when the couple insists on having kids, be it through adoption or other means, it will produce a whole class of battered people. Yes, I said BATTERED! There is no worse child abuse than to subject them to being denied either a father or mother. Making kids into guinea pigs in a social experiment that every statistic collected over decades has shown results in deformed psychological profiles in these individuals, is child abuse of the worst kind. It results in greater drug abuse, involvement in crime, educational and personal failures on a scale that places excessive burdens on socio-economic resources. It is a failed model of a family that has negative repercussions in every fiber of society. The government should not be supporting something that does this much harm to individuals and society as a whole. To do so, is tantamount to declaring war on its own citizens.
Louis, thats a point that I think those on the opposing side would seek to discredit.. From the few discussions ive heard. But I would think the evidence is in support of what you say. We can observe that even within Hederosexual homes where a parent vanishes. I mean ive seen, and to some degree experienced it first hand
I have a pdf file containing so many different studies from government agencies as well as independent private groups and universities on this that leaves no doubt about the terrible effects this kind of thing has on society. Where I live in the local paper about a week ago had a piece on how they are looking to spend millions on kids at risk(I know just what that means).
i believe that I have read that the single largest factor increasing the chances that a child will be abused physically or sexually is the presence of an adult heterosexual male in the home. So having the father in the home seems to increase the chance that a child will be abused.
The argument that i would use to counter this one is the fact that homosexual couples with children already exist in our society. It would seem to be in the best interest of the state to protect these couples in order to insure that their children grow up in a stable family. This seems to me to be the 'realist' option. One many not like it but we allow divorce for the same reason. Though it may not be the best option sometimes it is necessary. anyway just some thoughts
Louis, how would you respond to someone who is offended by the charge of putting pedofilia & polygamy in the same genre as homosexuality? Would you say their are any factors to consider in differentiating between them... in the sense that that compairison is "unfair"?
"single largest factor increasing the chances that a child will be abused physically or sexually is the presence of an adult heterosexual male in the home."
I think that statistic shouldent be supprising if you consider the bare fact that adult hederosexual males vastly outnumber any other familial variable, aside from perhaps adult hederosexual females. Sort of stating the obvious
"i believe that I have read that the single largest factor increasing the chances that a child will be abused physically or sexually is the presence of an adult heterosexual male in the home. So having the father in the home seems to increase the chance that a child will be abused. "
You missed my point completely. It is the situation itself that is abusive, not the people involved in it. It is like your parents accidentally getting killed in the middle of a desert ,when you are a toddler, where there is no source of water so that you die of thirst. It isn't the fact that someone intentionally deprived you of water that is causing your death. It is the absence of a means (your parents providing) of obtaining it that did. Do you see where you missed my point?
I would like to point out that I think that the most important thing for the raising of children is that they grow up in a family that loves and supports them. The president did not have a father at home but he did have a mother and grandparents that did. This is what the goverment needs to support. And that is why I have no problem with gay marriage. The goverment needs to support families as they really are not some fantasy version they want to exist.
I hope we recognize gay marriage. Then, I hope gays get married. Finally, I hope they stay married.
Long-married gay couples will receive that special respect and admiration that long-married straight couples get and good things will ripple out into the wider community. One of those good things will be that young gays will have an incentive to follow suit.
"Louis, how would you respond to someone who is offended by the charge of putting pedofilia & polygamy in the same genre as homosexuality?"
I guess I would point out that lying is a sin as well. There are a whole bunch of things that fall in the category of sin since sin is rebellion against God. It is the same genre of rebellion we are talking about. Will people be offended by the truth? Sure they will. But is that a problem for the truth or people? I am quite certain that such folks are not going to have a problem with only these two sins. If this is an area that they can't see as being a problem with sin, there are numerous others that they will agree with you are real problems. Murder would no doubt rank pretty high with them as a clearly moral crime and are likely to agree that moral crimes should be punished. Crime is crime and should be punished I think it is not productive to say..."Well, I stole only $1000 and so, I am way better than that other guy who stole $10000. I'm offended that you are calling me a crook. That's the other guy not me." Oh really?
" Would you say their are any factors to consider in differentiating between them... in the sense that that compairison is "unfair"?"
I would have to ask what the priority should be. Is it more important to be fair or to be honest in your assessment of what the truth is? I think that we should be careful on how the question is answered to someone who may be engaged in the kind of activity we are discussing, but it should be done in a way that does not compromise the truth of man's sinful condition and the available remedy of Christ's underground railroad for escape from the slavery to sin.
"It's easy to see that pedophilia and homosexuality are in separate categories provided the harm principle guides your ethics.
Base your ethics on 'it is written' and you are stuck with what is written. And, you are stuck with the results."
Lying and stealing and all other sins harms people as well. Not only those who do it, but those to whom they do it. So, I think that both pedophilia and homosexuality harm people. Considering this, why would they be in a separate category?
Well done.
Heterosexual behavior contributes to society in a way that homosexual behavior can't - regardless of whether or not homosexual behavior is right or wrong.
State marriage licensing is done on behalf of the people of a state for the benefit of the state, not so that two people can get hospital visitation for each other. If that really is a problem, then hospitals can address that without neutering state marriage licensing.
Follow my link for more.
Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant
Posted by: Ken | July 30, 2009 at 04:15 PM
Alec Baldwin argues that if marriage is for relationships prone to procreation so that if a heterosexual couple doesn't want to have or can not have children, they shouldn't be allowed to marry on those grounds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/why-childless-straight-co_b_208457.html
Does anybody have thoughts on this?
Posted by: Chris | July 30, 2009 at 06:38 PM
I would like to hear someone's thoughts besides my own on the above charge
Posted by: Forma | July 30, 2009 at 07:29 PM
In general, heterosexual relationships (of a marriage type) will procreate, whether they want to or not, due to the non-zero failure rate of all birth control methods.
Very few of those relationships will not procreate, either due to infertility or a combination of will and blind luck. That's a small enough fraction that it isn't practical to institute some sort of invasive check on a couple's fertility. The same requirement for a check does not hold for same-sex relationships.
This article gives a new wrinkle to the whole debate- we need gay marriage so we can have gay divorce! (Not to threadjack- it's just the strangest argument I've ever heard in this debate.)
Posted by: Dennis | July 30, 2009 at 09:38 PM
The problem with same sex marriage is that when the couple insists on having kids, be it through adoption or other means, it will produce a whole class of battered people. Yes, I said BATTERED! There is no worse child abuse than to subject them to being denied either a father or mother. Making kids into guinea pigs in a social experiment that every statistic collected over decades has shown results in deformed psychological profiles in these individuals, is child abuse of the worst kind. It results in greater drug abuse, involvement in crime, educational and personal failures on a scale that places excessive burdens on socio-economic resources. It is a failed model of a family that has negative repercussions in every fiber of society. The government should not be supporting something that does this much harm to individuals and society as a whole. To do so, is tantamount to declaring war on its own citizens.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | July 31, 2009 at 08:40 AM
Louis, thats a point that I think those on the opposing side would seek to discredit.. From the few discussions ive heard. But I would think the evidence is in support of what you say. We can observe that even within Hederosexual homes where a parent vanishes. I mean ive seen, and to some degree experienced it first hand
Posted by: Angellia Von Karosine | July 31, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Angellia
I have a pdf file containing so many different studies from government agencies as well as independent private groups and universities on this that leaves no doubt about the terrible effects this kind of thing has on society. Where I live in the local paper about a week ago had a piece on how they are looking to spend millions on kids at risk(I know just what that means).
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | July 31, 2009 at 02:22 PM
i believe that I have read that the single largest factor increasing the chances that a child will be abused physically or sexually is the presence of an adult heterosexual male in the home. So having the father in the home seems to increase the chance that a child will be abused.
The argument that i would use to counter this one is the fact that homosexual couples with children already exist in our society. It would seem to be in the best interest of the state to protect these couples in order to insure that their children grow up in a stable family. This seems to me to be the 'realist' option. One many not like it but we allow divorce for the same reason. Though it may not be the best option sometimes it is necessary. anyway just some thoughts
Posted by: topher | July 31, 2009 at 03:23 PM
Louis, how would you respond to someone who is offended by the charge of putting pedofilia & polygamy in the same genre as homosexuality? Would you say their are any factors to consider in differentiating between them... in the sense that that compairison is "unfair"?
Posted by: Angellia Von Karosine | July 31, 2009 at 04:23 PM
"single largest factor increasing the chances that a child will be abused physically or sexually is the presence of an adult heterosexual male in the home."
I think that statistic shouldent be supprising if you consider the bare fact that adult hederosexual males vastly outnumber any other familial variable, aside from perhaps adult hederosexual females. Sort of stating the obvious
Posted by: Angellia Von Karosine | July 31, 2009 at 04:26 PM
It would be trivial to point out in serious dialogue
Posted by: Angellia Von Karosine | July 31, 2009 at 04:27 PM
topher
"i believe that I have read that the single largest factor increasing the chances that a child will be abused physically or sexually is the presence of an adult heterosexual male in the home. So having the father in the home seems to increase the chance that a child will be abused. "
You missed my point completely. It is the situation itself that is abusive, not the people involved in it. It is like your parents accidentally getting killed in the middle of a desert ,when you are a toddler, where there is no source of water so that you die of thirst. It isn't the fact that someone intentionally deprived you of water that is causing your death. It is the absence of a means (your parents providing) of obtaining it that did. Do you see where you missed my point?
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | July 31, 2009 at 07:31 PM
Save a copy of this recording. In a few decades it will be amusing.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | July 31, 2009 at 07:32 PM
I would like to point out that I think that the most important thing for the raising of children is that they grow up in a family that loves and supports them. The president did not have a father at home but he did have a mother and grandparents that did. This is what the goverment needs to support. And that is why I have no problem with gay marriage. The goverment needs to support families as they really are not some fantasy version they want to exist.
Posted by: topher | July 31, 2009 at 08:48 PM
I hope we recognize gay marriage. Then, I hope gays get married. Finally, I hope they stay married.
Long-married gay couples will receive that special respect and admiration that long-married straight couples get and good things will ripple out into the wider community. One of those good things will be that young gays will have an incentive to follow suit.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | August 01, 2009 at 07:53 AM
Angellia
"Louis, how would you respond to someone who is offended by the charge of putting pedofilia & polygamy in the same genre as homosexuality?"
I guess I would point out that lying is a sin as well. There are a whole bunch of things that fall in the category of sin since sin is rebellion against God. It is the same genre of rebellion we are talking about. Will people be offended by the truth? Sure they will. But is that a problem for the truth or people? I am quite certain that such folks are not going to have a problem with only these two sins. If this is an area that they can't see as being a problem with sin, there are numerous others that they will agree with you are real problems. Murder would no doubt rank pretty high with them as a clearly moral crime and are likely to agree that moral crimes should be punished. Crime is crime and should be punished I think it is not productive to say..."Well, I stole only $1000 and so, I am way better than that other guy who stole $10000. I'm offended that you are calling me a crook. That's the other guy not me." Oh really?
" Would you say their are any factors to consider in differentiating between them... in the sense that that compairison is "unfair"?"
I would have to ask what the priority should be. Is it more important to be fair or to be honest in your assessment of what the truth is? I think that we should be careful on how the question is answered to someone who may be engaged in the kind of activity we are discussing, but it should be done in a way that does not compromise the truth of man's sinful condition and the available remedy of Christ's underground railroad for escape from the slavery to sin.
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | August 01, 2009 at 08:21 AM
It's easy to see that pedophilia and homosexuality are in separate categories provided the harm principle guides your ethics.
Base your ethics on 'it is written' and you are stuck with what is written. And, you are stuck with the results.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | August 01, 2009 at 09:33 AM
RonH
"It's easy to see that pedophilia and homosexuality are in separate categories provided the harm principle guides your ethics.
Base your ethics on 'it is written' and you are stuck with what is written. And, you are stuck with the results."
Lying and stealing and all other sins harms people as well. Not only those who do it, but those to whom they do it. So, I think that both pedophilia and homosexuality harm people. Considering this, why would they be in a separate category?
Posted by: Louis Kuhelj | August 03, 2009 at 08:15 AM