I was on a forum recently and had an opportunity to respond to an interesting post and question. I wanted to log this for future reference.
The Title of the post that the poster posted was Bad Logic vs Homosexual Marriage in which he started the line of posts with this argument to which I responded.
Argument:
Hello, folks! I intend to tackle some of the common mistakes the "protect mariage" people make. just for the record, I am NOT homosexual and I am pretty religious (LDS actually).
To maintain a state of inequality of rights (gays can't marry, heterosexuals can), the people wanting to maintain that inequality have the burden of proof as to show why such an inequality is just and should be practiced in law. For example, everybody has the right to freedom until proven otherwise. If I murder someone and you prove it, then my right to freedom should be taken away; this seems nothing but fair. However, I find no such proof at all in the side of the ones making the argument that homosexuals should not marry.
1) "Marriage is instituted by God and should be as He commanded: between a man and a woman."
That is true and I agree with this. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. But first, we have to realize we are talking not about a religious institution such as it is in the Church but a legal institution. We are talking about changing marriage as a legal institution and not a religious one. However, the discussion is NOT about what "should be" but about what "must be allowed". For example, we believe God commanded us NOT to worship other idols; so, since God commanded us not to worship other idols, should we make it illegal to worship idols? No, because, even if we do not agree with that practice, we must give equal rights to everybody for choosing whatever they want. Thus, we must allow homosexuals to marry even if we do not agree with it since they should be allowed the same legal freedoms that we have.
"But marriage is NOT a right; therefore, we are justified to discriminate based on sexual preferences."
let's assume that it is not a right. Having a driver's license is NOT a right either, does that mean we are justified to discriminate based on sexual preferences? "If you are homosexual you can't have a driver's license"? Attending a higher education institution is not a right, are educational institutions, then, justified in discriminating based on sexual preferences? of course not.
2) "To allow same-sex marriages is to attack the God-instituted form of marriage"
Not true. It is to change a legal institution, not a religious one.
3) "If we allow same-sex marriage to be legal Churches will loose their right to marry heterosexuals only"
Completely incorrect. Churches are allowed to practice whatever they want. I can make a Church that decides only to marry white people and no one can sue me over it. Religious institutions have always maintained such freedoms.
4) "Our kids will be taught that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriages in schools"
Probably, but any parent has the right to choose what topic not be taught to his child ('evolution' is one example). Also, even if children hear it in class, parents have ALL day of the rest of their lives to teach children that what they heard is not correct, that simple. There is NO evidence whatsoever that that kind of information will turn your child gay or lesbian.
5) "The people, through a democratic process, have chosen already that they want traditional marriage and some people in Government want to overthrow them"
Correct, because voting on someone else's rights should not be based on majorities. Example: in the 1800's most people wanted slavery, should slavery be adopted because of that? Can people in a state vote on someone else's freedom to marry? Should the people vote if they want interracial marriage to be allowed? Should the people vote if they want Protestantism as the official church of the State? Did Hitler had a legitimate right in murdering so many Jews because most of his people wanted it? the answer to all of these is NO!, because we do not choose on other people's rights democratically.
6) "Our freedom to choose what we teach our children is being threaten", "our freedom to exercise our religion is being threaten", "our freedom to practice marriage as we want to is being threaten", etc, etc.
Of course, none of these is true at all since the issue is if they (homosexuals) can marry among themselves, not if you can marry at all.
7) "They are attacking the traditional form of marriage"
This argument from tradition is very interesting since people actually believe that because something is 'traditional' or has been that way for many years it is therefore more correct. At one time, the traditional 'voters' were white males, does that mean it was correct to not let others vote? the traditional way of doing business at one time was through slavery, does give any support to the moral validity of slavery?
so, I hope we can have an interesting discussion to all those that decide to participate. however, I do ask that we may be respectful and present well-thought ideas, please!
with love to all, elguanteloko
That is true and I agree with this. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. But first, we have to realize we are talking not about a religious institution such as it is in the Church but a legal institution. We are talking about changing marriage as a legal institution and not a religious one. However, the discussion is NOT about what "should be" but about what "must be allowed". For example, we believe God commanded us NOT to worship other idols; so, since God commanded us not to worship other idols, should we make it illegal to worship idols? No, because, even if we do not agree with that practice, we must give equal rights to everybody for choosing whatever they want. Thus, we must allow homosexuals to marry even if we do not agree with it since they should be allowed the same legal freedoms that we have.
"But marriage is NOT a right; therefore, we are justified to discriminate based on sexual preferences."
let's assume that it is not a right. Having a driver's license is NOT a right either, does that mean we are justified to discriminate based on sexual preferences? "If you are homosexual you can't have a driver's license"? Attending a higher education institution is not a right, are educational institutions, then, justified in discriminating based on sexual preferences? of course not.
2) "To allow same-sex marriages is to attack the God-instituted form of marriage"
Not true. It is to change a legal institution, not a religious one.
3) "If we allow same-sex marriage to be legal Churches will loose their right to marry heterosexuals only"
Completely incorrect. Churches are allowed to practice whatever they want. I can make a Church that decides only to marry white people and no one can sue me over it. Religious institutions have always maintained such freedoms.
4) "Our kids will be taught that same-sex marriage is the same as heterosexual marriages in schools"
Probably, but any parent has the right to choose what topic not be taught to his child ('evolution' is one example). Also, even if children hear it in class, parents have ALL day of the rest of their lives to teach children that what they heard is not correct, that simple. There is NO evidence whatsoever that that kind of information will turn your child gay or lesbian.
5) "The people, through a democratic process, have chosen already that they want traditional marriage and some people in Government want to overthrow them"
Correct, because voting on someone else's rights should not be based on majorities. Example: in the 1800's most people wanted slavery, should slavery be adopted because of that? Can people in a state vote on someone else's freedom to marry? Should the people vote if they want interracial marriage to be allowed? Should the people vote if they want Protestantism as the official church of the State? Did Hitler had a legitimate right in murdering so many Jews because most of his people wanted it? the answer to all of these is NO!, because we do not choose on other people's rights democratically.
6) "Our freedom to choose what we teach our children is being threaten", "our freedom to exercise our religion is being threaten", "our freedom to practice marriage as we want to is being threaten", etc, etc.
Of course, none of these is true at all since the issue is if they (homosexuals) can marry among themselves, not if you can marry at all.
7) "They are attacking the traditional form of marriage"
This argument from tradition is very interesting since people actually believe that because something is 'traditional' or has been that way for many years it is therefore more correct. At one time, the traditional 'voters' were white males, does that mean it was correct to not let others vote? the traditional way of doing business at one time was through slavery, does give any support to the moral validity of slavery?
so, I hope we can have an interesting discussion to all those that decide to participate. however, I do ask that we may be respectful and present well-thought ideas, please!
with love to all, elguanteloko
My Response:
I am a Christian and so I believe we both agree on what God says about marriage. And so I do vote accordingly and I believe it is how I should vote. I do not believe that God wants me to hate those I disagree with so I don't. I also believe that abortion is murder based off of some scriptures and I also believe it is wrong to murder period based off of the ten commandments which reveals the character of God and I believe there is nothing wrong with voting according to these values.
I also believe there are good reasons for why God says such and such and I trust that there is and don't always require a reason why from God. After all He is God and that is good enough for me. Sometimes we get to see the evidence of why as we see that sex outside of marriage is quite costly in many ways to society and therefore have tangible evidence as to why. The same I would conclude with homosexual relationships. It is not the love between the two that is concerning me. But the actual act of sex.
I think the biggest issue for Christians and non-christians alike is the issue of how same sex marriages will effect our public institutions the biggest one being public schools. If homosexual marriages are normalized via legalization of them then that means a publicly funded school, organization or whatever would have to treat homosexuality as perfectly normal. Many people do not have a problem with a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman. In the Bible you have Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan. What most do have a problem with is the unnaturalness of the actual act of sex that homosexuality produces in the minds of voters and that is concerning for many and especially parents attempting to raise their children with the best in mind for their children.
Many parents don't want their boys nor the boys around their boys to think that homosexual sex is ok, safe and harmless. Many parents don't even care for comprehensive sex ed let alone now to have to include this type of sex ed. They actually allow parents to opt out of these classes and now to add homosexuality to it all. Even male homosexual acts that males perform on one another when performed on women are harmful. I remember this day a teenage girl telling me that it was quite painful for her. It is simply not natural and the unnaturalness of the acts of sex is just not acceptable for most. I think when people think about how it effects the public institutions that is where most say no.
You also have the concern that homosexuality is not safe not only because of the act of sex but also the diseases associated with it. There are enough diseases going on around out there that another one or encouraging further ways to spread them around is just not the direction many wish to go with it.
But anyways. I typed this in between calls and is rather quick but just some points of interest and concerns when it comes to same sex marriage.
PS I did not intend to imply that Naomi and Ruth or David and Jonathan are homosexuals. A man can love a man and a woman and woman. My wife loves her best friend and I love mine and they are the same sex as we are but that doesn't mean we have sex with each other. Nor does it mean that David and Jonathan or Naomi or Ruth had sex. If God wanted us to learn from those passages that they did then He would have clearly made that evident and even if one wants to conclude from a passage here or there that they did it means nothing. David did alot of bad stuff in his life that the scriptures didn't specifically condemn and so did Abraham and many others but it is clear from the whole context of scripture that they did things that were not what God wanted them to do.
Anyways, thanks for your post. Take care...
For those who are considering that maybe homosexuality is not what God has planned for you or that you are struggling with this temptation which is what I believe it is basically a temptation to do what God did not originally design nor desire us to do much like any heterosexual sin of lust or pornography etc etc see https://valuesvoternews.com/searc...%20Testimonies
And if you are a homosexual that is offended by what I say I mean no hate whatsoever. I believe we can agree to disagree and yet still tolerate and love one another. Take care all, on both sides....
