To Make the Case Against Gay Marriage, Hide Your Religious Bias.

Two authors tried to make a case against gay marriage without using religion.

The case they try to make is about what we all know as “the common good.”  Their argument, the common good is hurt by gay marriage.

That argument always has two assumptions.  One is that heterosexual marriage is the superior kind.  The other that homosexual marriage harms hetero marriage.

We all know the benefits to society in general of marriage.  Stable households, care for people in the household that does not require government and so on.  But, these arguments apply to both straight and gay marriages.  The only argument that doesn’t apply is that having children is in society’s interests and gay couples cannot have children.

We all know many marriages do not result in children.  Many unmarried people have children.  The argument straight marriage deserves higher ranking because of children should include the case for government benefits going only to straight married couples that have children.

The authors implore readers not to get side tracked with arguments about equality.  Equality, they say, should not be raised because the issue of harm to the institution of marriage is more important.  It’s easy to see why they do not like the equality argument. It defeats them.

Instead of ducking the truth, these authors and others like them who try to make a common good argument against gay marriage should admit what their game is all about.  It’s using the Bible to jusfy gay bashing.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/same-sex-marriage-debate-is-about-defining-marriage-not-equality-authors-contend-87983/

54 thoughts on “To Make the Case Against Gay Marriage, Hide Your Religious Bias.

  1. Jon: “readers not to get side tracked with arguments about equality. “

    I disagree with their contention. Equlity is a consideration and currently gays have equal rights. They currently have the right to get married, just like everone else does. It appears they want extra rights.

    • Henry- Saying that gays can get married is deceptive. Yes, they can get married to someone they are not attracted, do not love intimately, and which will be a poor marriage. However, they do not have equal rights and will not have equal rights until they can marry the individual who they love and want to spend their life together with.

      To think that is equal rights simply is delusional, as one group of individuals have the right to marry those who they are attracted to, and who they love, while the other group is forbidden, and instead, the only way in which they can get married is if they lie to themselves, and their partner and have a sham of a marriage.

          • Again, it is technically impossible for homosexuals to consummate a marriage. Therefore, no marriage.

          • Henry- Can you quote the law in which it states that in order for a marriage, the couple must consummate it? This is a rhetorical question as we both know there is no such law. Above that, a same-sex couple can consummate their marriage anyway. So you’re argument holds no actual water.

          • Dusty: “so your argument is not valid.”

            You don’t know what you are talking about and have no undistorted grasp of history or culture, which is most frustrating as you are likely one of the more educated people on here.

            Consummation of marriage is the conjugal act which is suitable for the procreation of children. The natural order of marriage follows even to the elderly in this manner even though the potential for procreation has become nil.

            This is the historical understanding of marriage. Just for your reference Dusty, sperm and feces do not create or have the potential to create a baby. I suppose you are now going to support your position with an example of contrary marriage practices of some remote island in the pacific. Please, educate us on the exception.

          • Henry- Again, show me what law states what you’re saying. There simply is none that says that a couple must consummate their marriage.

            Plus, consummating a marriage simply is the act of sexual intercourse, whether or not there is a chance to have children. The fact is, many straight marriages also have no possibility of producing children either. And they are still considered marriage. Not to mention, again, there is nothing that says that a marriage must be consummated. There is no law, no religious doctrine (at least for the most part), nothing.

            So you’re argument fails as the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with consummating, and it has nothing to do with the possibility of producing children.

          • Dusty, you will have to re-read my previous post. I provided the historical understanding.

  2. There are same-sex marriages between two women and between two men. They have utterly different demographics, life spans, health and behavioral characteristics, and sexual behaviors. They are as different from one another as men are from women. If you were to create gay marriage, you end up with three totally different marital entities. We would have heterosexual marriage, female gay marriage and male gay marriage. This new set of marital structures will, in turn, produce three new classes of children.

    What’s worse, the government is deliberately setting out to create two new and different classes of damaging situations. In spite of a mountain of evidence staring it in the face that this is surely going to have devastating effects on children.”

    What will and is being produced is a generation in gender confusion. Not relating as or to men and women. The will be no male and female, no right and wrong, no true and false. Nobody will stand up for anything because nobody believes in anything. A society of ready-made zombie slaves. That what the elites are creating. Who we are as human beings is profoundly based on who we are as men and women, boys and girls. To lose sight of this is to surrender to to the rule of elitist overlords.

    • Michael 6:32 I blogged a while back about how making predicitions is free. The result is a surplus of predictions. People toss them out by the millions.

      You have made far reaching predictions about harm that will be done our society from gays marrying and gays raising children. There is no basis for broad sweeping conclusions this harm will come about. Certainly, we can see data that children do better when there is a stable heterosexual marriage. But, this is not what happens in millions of households where there is but one parent.

      Do you, yourself, know a gay couple raising children? Do the children seem confused about their sexuality? Do you know even one adult, raised by gay parents? Is that person confused?

      • “You have made far reaching predictions”

        Never in history have we been down this road before. Homosexual relationships have never been called marriage, broadly accepted by society and sanctioned by the government and even the “church” in some cases. If there is no history to support this social experiment and no moral absolutes such as offered in the Bible, then we are flying blind. I’d say you are the one making far reaching predections.

        • Michael 3:20 “I’d say you are the one making far reaching predictions.”

          You are correct. I am predicting gay marriage will have no bad effect on children–it will not cause “gender confusion”. The only thing different about my prediction and yours is mine is based on the children, now adults, raised by gay parents. You refer to the Bible, but it does not say children raised by gay parents will have confused sexual identity.

          • Jon: “I am predicting gay marriage will have no bad effect on children”

            Try it out on children to see if it works (all for the benefit of gay adults)? I thought human testing was banned or carefully controlled.

          • Henry 6:41 “(all for the benefit of gay adults)”

            I’d suggest you ask the children of these gay couples if they are happy and unhappy they were adopted by gay couples.

            On, “I thought human testing was banned or carefully controlled.” we’ve had some nevertheless that tested prevailing myths. Interracial children were thought for decades to be headed for a future disastor. I remember a commencement preacher in the mid 1950’s saying he told a couple who were in love, one Catholic the other Protestant, he saw no hope for their relationship, there children would be confused. Experience and data are harmful, not to children, but to religious myths.

          • Henry 9:00 You enjoy posting garbage stuff. The first ariticle is one incident of an abusive gay parent. There are hundreds of thousands sexually abusive straight parents.

            The second article we have discussed here before. The researcher does not conclude gay parenting is worse than straight parenting. He knows the sgay relationships in his study were more unstable than the straight relationships. He did not study children of equally stable gay & straight relationships.

          • Jon: “He did not study children of equally stable gay & straight relationships.”

            Well, there you go. Blame it on the fact gays are not as stable in child rearing. If you insist. We have to pit specially hand-picked gays that are “stable” against the run-of-the-mill heteros in order to make it fair. That doesn’t seem very scientific. More agenda oriented.

          • Henry 10:33 This is like those arguments against gays in general. First, treat them like society’s outcasts, peryrahias. Then, note they have higher rates of alcholism.

            It’s not unlike preventing black people from going to school and then complaining because they don’t read.

            They have not been allowed to marry, discouraged from marrying and we find many relationships that aren’t stable. Let’s wait a few years after marriage and stable relationships are encouraged and see what happens. In the meantime, if we’re going to make generalizations about how children turn out, let’s compare stable to stable, unstable to unstable relationships.

          • Jon: “They have not been allowed to marry”

            Again, gay marriage is impossible. The marriage cannot be consummated. They desire a label that doesn’t fit.

          • Jon, it is a label. It is like calling a man who received his one-week mail order doctoral study a doctor. That “doctor” is not recognized. Same for homosexual “marriage”.

            The mail order “doctor” if widely recognized, would erode Dr. Lindgren’s title.

        • Michael A. Ross-“Never in history have we been down this road before. ”

          That simply is untrue. We have been down this road. One of the most well-known cases of same-sex marriages was that of the Emperor Nero. It was considered a marriage. There were also many other such cases as well.

          • Nero? Nero! The man who blamed Christians for the burning of Rome and killed many by crucifixion and in the Collusium? This is who you pick as a stable gay marriage?

          • Stanta- You’re putting words into my mouth. I didn’t say Nero was an ideal person, or that his marriage was stable (I have no idea how is marriage went as it really isn’t documented). I was simply showing that there are definite cases in which same-sex marriages were recognized as marriages.

          • Slavery, indiscriminate murder by the nobility were also considered the norm at that time. In fact at some point in history almost any thing we would now consider unthinkable was considerd “normal”. Shall we go back to the day when cannibalism was “normal”.

          • Stan 1:39 “Slavery, indiscriminate murder by the nobility were also considered the norm at that time.”

            You’re talking about the men who wrote the Bible. That’s why Freethinkers ignore it.

            And, it wasn’t just the OT. Paul had all kinds of nut case rules we should follow, women need long hair, but covered up, men short hair, when we eat as a group and with whom. Doesn’t help me any.

          • Dustin, no where in the Bible is the eating of human flesh forbidden, I guess that makes it ok?

          • Stanta- I woud suggest that you reread what I said. I’m not talking about the Bible, I’m not trying to justify anything here. Michael stated that never before in history have we been down this road before, that homosexual relationships have never been seen as marriages. I pointed out that was patently false, and I gave an example in order to show that what Michael stated was indeed false.

            So your statements directed at me actually have nothing to do with what I’m saying, and really are irrelevant. So are the last statements that Michael made. The fact is, as I have shown, homosexual relationships have been seen as marriage.

          • Dustin, you realize that Nero was Emperor and God don’t you? Tell me, who is going to tap on his shoulder and tell him he can’t do that. Was it accepted because it was the equitable thing to do, or the SAFE thing.

            It is interesting that the period of time you chose to use as your example it was also normal to have rape parties, orgies, beastility, pedaphelia, adultery, religious prostitution and about any other sexual deviation you can think of.

            Now was homosexual marriage the reason for thus corruption? Probably not, but there are many who think it was a symptom. I don’t believe you can blame the fall of Imperial Rome on rampant Christianity.

          • Stanta- You missed the point again. I was simply showing that Michael was wrong when he stated that homosexual relationships were never considered marriages. That simply is wrong, as I pointed out.

    • Michael- Responding to your initial comment. There isn’t more gender confusion today then in the past. If we look at ancient Egypt, one can find individuals (followers of a certain goddess) who were described as a third gender. In fact, if one looks, such a categorization can be seen throughout history. In various societies, one has what is called a “berdache,” which blurred the lines of the gender categories. The same thing is true throughout Hebrew, Greek, and Roman society, where a man was insulted for being effeminate as they were blurring the lines of the prescribed gender boundaries. So we are talking about a phenomena that can be seen throughout history.

      However, throughout history, people continually stand up for what is right, for what is true. Looking at human history, we can see what you’re saying simply is categorically incorrect. It is being fearful over something that simply won’t happen, and we can know this based on human history.

      As for the devastating effects on children; there simply isn’t a mountain of evidence supporting that idea. Yes, you can find a few studies that support what you’re saying. Even if we ignore the problems with those studies (such as clear biases, jumping to conclusions that the evidence doesn’t support, etc.), there are even more studies that argue the other way. In fact, if you look at the various Pediatric or Psychological national agencies, they almost agree that same-sex partners can and do make suitable parents who do not harm their children.

      Even more though, there isn’t three sets marriages or children here. There is only one. There is the marriage between individuals who love each other. The marriage between a same-sex couple is no different than that of a different sex couple, besides what is done in the bedroom (and not even always then). The ideology that you are furthering here is the same exact idea that was being circulated a century ago about African-Americans. Yet, today we see that it doesn’t matter what the color of a person’s skin is; marriage is marriage.

      This also applies to what Henry has said, but most would see that the forbidding of interracial copies to marry was intolerant and was taking away their rights. Yet, what you’re doing here is the same thing that we now condemn as intolerant and racist.

  3. The world is full of poor parenting. There are many heterosexuals couples that are simply not capable of providing a nurturing, caring upbringing to a child in today’s world. I know there are gay homes where children would be better off being raised. But if anyone believes across society, as a whole, that there are no advantages or benefits of being raised by a mom (female) and dad (male) versus a couple of gay men, you have convinced yourself of an argument that will not hold water today, tomorrow , or for the next 1,000 years. Unlike parallels to slavery where society figured things out in time, there some differences regarding anatomy, human reproduction etc…..that will never change or be molded to fit the gay agenda over time. Sometimes Jon, I really wonder if you have the ability to convince yourself, and write about, that gays can reproduce?

    P.S. (Disclaimer). …I am a heterosexual Christian. I believe my sins are no different than a gay person’s sin. I do not hate gay people. I know gay people who would be better parents than many heterosexual parents in the world today.

    • You and Ricky are living in disgusting perversion and mocking God’s holy institution of marriage. In all fairness, those who throw up their hands and walk away from their marriage because it isn’t all they expected it to be are doing the same. God’s plan for marriage is one man and one woman until death do us part.

          • Michael A. Ross 4:14 “In the Old Testament God purposely kept the status of women low.”

            Deity-sanctioned discrimination? Why?

          • Michael 4:14 re: Old Testament

            I’m going a little off topic here, but reading last night from the NT, Paul’s letter, 1 Corinthian 11, he discusses at length that women must keep their hair long but keep it covered. Men must keep their hair short. This is straight from Paul, the horse’s mouth. Why are these absolute rules ignored?

      • Michael- Where in the Bible does God set out what marriage is, and only is? Or are you just picking and choosing what fits your own prejudice?

        The Bible details a variety of different marriages. These ideas include polygamy, marrying one’s rapist, marrying your brother-in-law, being sold, etc. In the New Testament, when we look at marriage, the most common form of marriage would have been between an older gentleman, and a woman who was just hitting puberty (her child bearing years). Often, it was an arranged marriage (as well as forced) and between an uncle and his niece. One definitely did not marry out of one’s own group though.

        Really, what you get is a form of marriage that is not accepted in today’s current society as it is restrictive, harmful, and really based on economic ties, not love.

          • Stanta- Was there a marriage between Adam and Eve though? No, there was not (not to mention that it is a mythological story anyway). There is no mention of a marriage. When we do begin seeing marriages, they are not marriages that most would condone today. Such as marriages in which a man has multiple wives, or a marriage in which the man is free to sleep with their wives maids. Or marriages in which one has to marry someone in their own specific group. Or marriages in which the women are forced into the marriage and are basically sold as property.

            The Bible says a bunch of different things in regards to marriage. When we add the archeological and anthropological evidence to the mix, we get more ideas regarding the multiple forms of marriage that were practiced. So really, your argument is not valid as it ignores everything else.

          • Dustin, when is the last time we have followed Gods law to the letter? I know, let’s take a vote to repeal the 10 Commandments.

  4. Regarding which households children fare best in, I seem to recall the best environment was a 2 parent household OF A CERTAIN ECONOMIC STATUS, amongst other things. Those whose argument is based on ‘what’s best for children’ should layer in a certain income requirement before people can reproduce.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>