Non-Religious Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage (4)

[LittleNipper]

Two 10 year old girls are marooned on a beautiful deserted tropical island for 40 years. Question: How long did the girls remain heterosexual?

This would seem to invalidate the notion that homosexuality is not influenced by the environment and choices. Clearly the boy and girl could choose to remain celebate, but in reality it is unlikely that they will remain so.

The boy and girl grow to depend and love each other. As the years move on they decide to have sex ---- even though they know little about it. Being healthy they eventually produce children.

The reality is there is no homosexuality. The impulse has not been fed. Tell me how this cannot be so...

 

[yguy]

Humans got where we are by acting like human animals, sure.

Was Ghandi more human than Stalin? If so, why?

Doing what? Being humans?

Were Hitler's followers "being humans"?

Of course it doesn't. Evolution is a description of a natural process. How could it make moral judgements?

Then who does? And on what basis other than survival of Homo Sapiens?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Beanie, you are wonderfuly eloquent. Your posts are always thought-provoking.

I'm not upset about it and I'm not actively working against it. Why is that you want nothing less than my total capitulation to your pov and a guarantee of my vote? And those who actively oppose it, want the same.

It's MY vote, folks, to use or not use as I see fit. In your quest to gain civil rights, are you okay with actively interfering with mine? The end justifies the means?

Which of your civil rights exactly are you being interferred with?

 

[UncleHermit]

This would seem to invalidate the notion that homosexuality is not influenced by the environment and choices. Clearly the boy and girl could choose to remain celebate, but in reality it is unlikely that they will remain so.

The boy and girl grow to depend and love each other. As the years move on they decide to have sex ---- even though they know little about it. Being healthy they eventually produce children.

The reality is there is no homosexuality. The impulse has not been fed. Tell me how this cannot be so...

The scenario doesn't invalidate anything, because you just made it up.

 

[Shane Roach]

The argument as to the effect on marriage I believe has already been addressed on this thread. Perhaps more than once. It is pretty straight forward.

The process of socialization is responsible for passing the values of a culture down to each successive generation. People look at all of the reasons why they believe homosexuality is unhealthy and decide they do not what homosexuality beginning to become an accepted norm.

In the past, homosexuality of some form or another has been the norm in some cultures. Things as bizarre as playing games where the winner is sacrificed in a religious ceremony have become the social norms in the past. Divorce has become the norm for black couples, and is becoming more and more normal across the board, with measurable effects on the family, health of children, the economy, and a host of other issues.

So the concern is that this departure from the historical function of family will mislead folks into believing that homosexuality is of equal importance to society as any other family, when in fact the family unit is necessary for a culture to survive and develop, whereas gay couples and their conceivable impact even as alternative families when for whatever reason they have children of their own, or even as adoptive families is relatively minute.

The idea of having "marriage" benefits pared down to the point to which they only accrue to families with children has been brought up several times now on this thread, and I believe it addresses precisely these concerns.

Couple that with the fact that homosexuality is a behavior rather than a physical trait of some sort. There's no real concern of violating civil rights, because civil rights do not accrue to minority behaviors, they accrue to individuals of both minority and majority status. There's no indication that there are any behaviors at all, homosexuality included, that are entirely free of biological influences, and likewise there is no indication that homosexuality is exclusively genetic. Indeed, there is no real understanding in the scientific community as to how one would even distinguish between choices, attitudes, urges and behaviors that can or cannot be changed or "chosen". Many argue there is no such thing as "choice" at all, but that it is an illusion.

The question then is whether or not this behavior, associated as it is with many health and social issues, ought to be treated as perfectly acceptable in the face of all the problems that surround the gay subculture.

 

[Nooj]

Was Ghandi more human than Stalin?

No.

Were Hitler's followers "being humans"?

At no point did they stop being humans. So they were humans.

Then who does?

Humans make moral judgements.

And on what basis other than survival of Homo Sapiens?

Any basis we choose or want or feel that is binding on us.

 

[UncleHermit]

Was Ghandi more human than Stalin? If so, why?

No.

Were Hitler's followers "being humans"?

Yes.

Then who does? And on what basis other than survival of Homo Sapiens?

We humans do. It should at least be obvious that it is not a non-sentient physical process that decides or judges morality.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Not according to Jesus and the Apostles.

We take their word on things as just a tad bit more important than worldy governments and lascivious, licentious, hedonists.

The unrestrained life that we have left for Christ, we can never be a part of for any serious length of time, without returning to the Lord.

We'll abide your laws once they are inflicted on society, and we'll still live our lives opposing what it is "the world" offers up. Some of us will get caught up and caught away into the licentiouness that effects people, but that will never, ever, mean acceptance of it. Just a mistake in experiencing sin. And there's a cure for that as well. But know well, our courtesy toward government can never be seen as complicity.



----- Jesus and Peter taught that we have to show a form of respect for those in authorities over us, but only so far as it does not force us to become like them.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” John 13:34


If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20


Jesus says you are wrong

 

[UncleHermit]

@Nooj

jinx

 

[Nooj]

/10chara

 

[BigBadWlf]

And you're going to be tortured for eternity because God doesn't like you to have any fun in this life, you sodomite.

Do you know how long eternity is?

/rollseyes

And they are going to sit in hell right next to the all people who ate clam chowder

 

[BigBadWlf]

To IzzyPop,
You don’t get the argument being discussed do you. The point which was being discussed was the act regardless of the consent.

NO. If you read what I wrote you will see that its dysfunctional because of the use of the sexual organs. Perhaps you don’t see any organs as sexual reproductive organs, just pleasure organs?
But that’s a malfunction not a dysfunction.

Again and again we see this attempt to de-humanize a minority from those trying to justify discrimination. By claiming a minority is diseased or degenerate, or obsessed with sex, or any other number of hate based claims then it reduces that minority (and everyone else) and supposedly makes discrimination somehow justified.
Such horrible claims were made against blacks and Jews and the handicapped and even though the target minority has changed little else has

Ok then most people who call themselves Christians

As noted sharing your personal prejudices is not a requirement of being a Christian

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed for staff review

MOD HAT OFF