« Is It Moral to Vaccinate Your Child? | Main | Links Mentioned on the 4/28/15 Show »

April 28, 2015

Comments

I just had an interesting thought I haven't seen written out anywhere.

If someone claims that homosexuals have a "natural" proclivity to the same sex and therefore should not fight against their "natural" attraction, how do they then argue against the unique "natural" function of human reproduction that only involves a male and a female?

They would say that two men or two women should be able to raise children, but on what grounds do they claim that? That is not how "nature" works. Children are born ONLY to a man and a woman; therefore, nature meant for children to be raised by a man and a woman.

And if raising children is "naturally" to be done by a man and a woman, then an institution like marriage would be appropriate to encourage that "natural" relationship.

I'd like to see others' thoughts on this.

@johnny:

I don't think anyone argues "against" male/female reproduction, I take it that most of us are here today because of it!

I don't know about your assertion that "...nature meant for children to be raised by a man and a woman." In lots of mammals the male's purpose is simply to impregnate the female, she does the birthing and raising alone. And I'm sure you know of lots of people as do I who have turned out to be well-adjusted adults who were raised by one parent. So while two parents are ideal, I don't think it's an absolute necessity.

As for marriage, it's great! Been doing it 25 years myself. Unlike a lot of people here and on Fairview Street, I just see this gay marriage issue as a time waster.

Ivy. Some people turn out alright despite their handicap. That does not mean that their handicap is not a handicap.

If you deny that a child is entitled to a mother and a father, it follows that it is not essential that a child have a mother or a father. After all, if I am not entitled to your car and your house, it follows that I am not entitled to your car or your house.

How then do we know who has the obligation to raise children? Clearly, you've rejected nature. The state? If so, then the implication is that gay marriage entails that children are wards of the state. In that case, children can be legtimately taken away from Christian parents if thoe parents teach iin their home that homosexuality is immoral, since such a lesson, according to the gay rights movement, is "hate" and teaching children hate is child abuse. Since child abuse is a reason to remove children from parents, it will be done.

Get ready for the persecution. It's coming, I guarantee it.

@Thomas

Not sure of your reasoning here. "If you deny that a child is entitled to a mother and a father..." I don't think anyone denies that a child is entitled to a mother/father household. Obviously, when mom & dad are in a harmonious relationship, that's best for the kids. But as we see in our neighborhoods and churches, mom/dad relationships are perfect and parents break up and divorce for all kinds of reasons that we in our culture have no control over. We just hope and pray that the kids develop successfully in spite of it.

And as for somehow the "state" removing kids from their parent's homes because they're being taught that homosexuality is immoral, that seems somewhat far-fetched. There are already homes of KKK members where real hate is taught, but I don't see their kids being removed because of it...

Sorry, bad typing. I should have said in the above comment: "mom/dad relationships are far from perfect..."

Ragtime's trick here is to point out things that don't live up to the ideal and then use that that to remove the ideal to begin with.

Perhaps the ideal should be upheld, instead of destroyed.

What in the constitution requires marriage (and marital equality) to involve "sexual" love? If the Supreme Court should find SSM consitutional, under what grounds can the state reject a marriage application by two roommates, siblings, grandpa and grandchild or even two families that are neighbors? I'm talking about platonic relationships here? What is your basis for saying marriage requires sex? Exactly what in the 14th amendment requires such a restriction?

The comments to this entry are closed.