Is traditional marriage threatened by gay marriage?

[radical_logic]

Those who contend that traditional marriage is threatened by gay marriage need to address and refute the following argument.

(1). The existence of heterosexual marriages--for existing married heterosexual couples (henceforth HSC)--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(2). The existence of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(3). The personal value of heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
(4). The personal value of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--is not threatened by the existence of homosexual marriages.
---------------------------
(5). Therefore, heterosexual marriages are not threatened by homosexual marriages.
(6). Therefore, traditional marriage is not threatened by gay marriage.

Those who declare (1) to be false must demonstrate that heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--could cease to exist simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?

Those who declare (2) to be false must demonstrate that potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--might not exist simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?

Those who declare (3) to be false must demonstrate that the personal value of heterosexual marriages--for existing married HSC--is threatened by homosexual marriages. Who can make such an argument?

Those who declare (4) to be false must demonstrate that the personal value of potential future heterosexual marriages--for unmarried HSC--would be threatened simply because homosexual marriages exist. Who can make such an argument?

Those who accept (1)-(4) but declare (5) to be false have a difficult task ahead of them: they must articulate the threat posed by heterosexual marriages to existing and potential heterosexual marriages--for existing married and unmarried HSC--not covered under (1)-(4). But what could that threat be? Who can articulate and demonstrate such a threat?

Those who accept (1)-(5) but declare (6) to be false need to articulate the distinction between the concept of heterosexual marriage and traditional marriage. Who can articulate and defend such a distinction?

[Jebus]

Mr Easyrider, good to meet you. I got some questions regarding your beliefs as what you've been saying interest me quite a deal.

I.
Do you see a difference between what you believe and what is true?

I ask this because You clearly have some harsh opinions abot homosexuals which makes me put you in the 'homophobe section', which is according to me an insult, so I apologize if this is not correct.

These opinions you have also seem to go against what civilized society consider decent and good, ie persecution of homosexuals, the prevention of god-given rights to homosexuals and so forth. Could you cure my ignorance of your beliefs regarding this issue?


II.
'Traditional marriage', which could be rather akward to define for religious folks, is threatened by homosexual marriage, how?

I do not understand how that works. It is kind of saying that selling BigMac is a threat to the people of the world eating McChicken.... How??? What does that have to do with the McCicken eaters? They make their own choice of what they wish to eat, dont they?



With all respect.
J

[Scotracer]

Marriage has existed longer than Christianity/the bible has so who are those opposing gay marriage to say?

Thankfully here in the UK I can marry (although called Civil Union) my boyfriend if I so wish.

[Easyrider]

All you were trying to do anyway was muddle the issue so as to try to excuse gay sex sin / gay marriage, which is the real issue.

A plain falsehood. I've said over and over that you can preach, teach and argue that gay sex is sinful all you like. I have no problem waith that at all; as with any other beliefs you have, it's not for me to say that you're wrong.

What I DO say is that you have no right to compel others to follow your beliefs as a matter of law - and that your argument is both inconsistent and hypocritical, in that you beat the drum against some violations of Biblical standards and remain silent about others, including your own.

Nuts. Who are you to tell others what kind of legislation they can and can't submit for people to abide by? The Law Monitor? Like I've said before, if there's enough support for something it will become law, either through normal legislation or via Constitutional amendment. And I understand the Constitution just fine, thank you!

Why do you delete the questions and refuse to answer them? YOU are muddying the issue.

I respond to what I think is appropriate, and / or what I have time for.

Your only interest is in promoting discrimination against gays.

Wrong again, CNorman. But I do think denigration and discrimination against people of faith (i.e. traditional, Biblically-based Christians) is an abomination.

Another phony dodge and baseless accusation. Since when is disagreement and reasoned (not to mention Scriptural) argument discrimination and denigration?

When you indulge in personal attacks like I previously pointed out, and when you say that I have no right to propose legislation that you don't think is right.

On your personal attack I previously noted, your response to its "appropriateness" was that it was a true accusation (so it must be ok). Is that a new forum standard - that people can indulge in personal attacks just because they think they're true?

I've made my position clear, via scripture, and via tradition. And mine is a legitimate position in numerous American churches, and even within various Jewish Orthodox circles. If you don't want to believe that then fine, but there's no point in going further with you, at least in this thread.

Have a nice day.

[Scotracer]

Easyrider, you simply don't get it. For something to be illegal there should be just cause for it - in reality. If the only argument you have is that you and your Christian friends don't like it and you "think" it's wrong (because a 2000 year old book tells you it is) then your argument deserves to be laughed out the building.

Unless you can give real, tangible reasons for something to be made/kept illegal then you can kindly shut up. And no, saying "all these other nations have fallen in the past, and they had homo relations therefore it was that fault!" wont work. No, that's a fallacy of causation.

And all the countries that have gay marriage now...well, they just have gay marriage. Their countries aren't crumbling or falling into some sort of apocalyptic anarchy.

So, where's your evidence that as a cause of gay marriage being legalised, bad stuff will happen?

[Easyrider]

Mr Easyrider, good to meet you. I got some questions regarding your beliefs as what you've been saying interest me quite a deal.

I.
Do you see a difference between what you believe and what is true?

I ask this because You clearly have some harsh opinions abot homosexuals which makes me put you in the 'homophobe section', which is according to me an insult, so I apologize if this is not correct.

These opinions you have also seem to go against what civilized society consider decent and good, ie persecution of homosexuals, the prevention of god-given rights to homosexuals and so forth. Could you cure my ignorance of your beliefs regarding this issue?


II.
'Traditional marriage', which could be rather akward to define for religious folks, is threatened by homosexual marriage, how?

I do not understand how that works. It is kind of saying that selling BigMac is a threat to the people of the world eating McChicken.... How??? What does that have to do with the McCicken eaters? They make their own choice of what they wish to eat, dont they?


With all respect.
J

Greetings. Have you read the Bible? Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20;13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7, etc. I think you ought to familiarize yourself with that, and with how Sodomy has been viewed in America since its founding (note: Sodomy was illegal in most, if not all, American states at one time).

And why is my position any more harsh than yours, as you're labeling me a homophobe and inferring I am a persecutor of gays (which is inaccurate)?

What's the objective basis of your beliefs to say mine are wrong or homophobic? Or are yours based on contemporary, politically correct attitudes instead of on the Word of God?

[JoeyKnothead]

Or are yours based on contemporary, politically correct attitudes instead of on the Word of God?

And there lies the rub. How can we know the Bible is the word of God?

If we can't know the Bible is the word of God, why should we feel compelled to follow its ancient 'teaching'?

[Angel]

I believe the Christian position on marriage involves there being an objective form of marriage in that it was not a human construct but a divine one and certain standards objectively apply to it (as in those standards being *truly* how a marriage should be). So although marriages predate Christianity but that is not to say that it wasn't put in place and set up by God. Keep in mind also, I'm not using this explanation as a premise for a logical argument but rather it's just to explain the position of Christians on marriage.

I.
Do you see a difference between what you believe and what is true?

If you want to use the word truth when applied to standards that relate to marriage, can you please objectively or logically prove which standards apply to marriage. In other words, how do you truly know the Christian position is wrong or that your position is right?

I ask this because You clearly have some harsh opinions abot homosexuals which makes me put you in the 'homophobe section', which is according to me an insult, so I apologize if this is not correct.

These opinions you have also seem to go against what civilized society consider decent and good, ie persecution of homosexuals, the prevention of god-given rights to homosexuals and so forth. Could you cure my ignorance of your beliefs regarding this issue?

I can grant that gays are gay due to nature, but how do you know that that should be taken as far as them being morally right in marrying? It seems most people have standards when it comes to marriage, like some not approving of polygamy, or incestuous marriages, etc. So can you prove your standards are correct over the Christian standards?

Logically speaking, if you don't have any proof that's not to say that your position is wrong, but it is to say that it's a belief just as the Christian standard is a belief.

[cnorman18]

All you were trying to do anyway was muddle the issue so as to try to excuse gay sex sin / gay marriage, which is the real issue.

A plain falsehood. I've said over and over that you can preach, teach and argue that gay sex is sinful all you like. I have no problem waith that at all; as with any other beliefs you have, it's not for me to say that you're wrong.

What I DO say is that you have no right to compel others to follow your beliefs as a matter of law - and that your argument is both inconsistent and hypocritical, in that you beat the drum against some violations of Biblical standards and remain silent about others, including your own.

Nuts. Who are you to tell others what kind of legislation they can and can't submit for people to abide by? The Law Monitor? Like I've said before, if there's enough support for something it will become law, either through normal legislation or via Constitutional amendment. And I understand the Constitution just fine, thank you!

Apparently you don't. No one here has said you don't have the right to propose legislation of any kind you like. Propose it till your face turns blue. Get it passed into law. It will be declared null and void if it's based on religious belief because it's unconstitutional, and there is ZERO chance of that being overturned. That is what I am saying, and you know that.

Repeating your knowingly false claim that I'm trying to prevent you from proposing any legislation you like doesn't make it true.

I notice that you do not bother to reply to the second part of my statement above, to wit: "...your argument is both inconsistent and hypocritical, in that you beat the drum against some violations of Biblical standards and remain silent about others, including your own."

In short, you began this parting shot by (1) repeating a strawman, and (2) ducking an argument.

Is this the best you can do?

Why do you delete the questions and refuse to answer them? YOU are muddying the issue.

I respond to what I think is appropriate, and / or what I have time for.

Funny how you don't think direct, on-point and Scripture-based questions are "appropriate," and seem to have plenty of time to repeatedly post strawman arguments, make false accusations and misstate my position.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Your only interest is in promoting discrimination against gays.

Wrong again, CNorman. But I do think denigration and discrimination against people of faith (i.e. traditional, Biblically-based Christians) is an abomination.

Another phony dodge and baseless accusation. Since when is disagreement and reasoned (not to mention Scriptural) argument discrimination and denigration?

When you indulge in personal attacks like I previously pointed out, and when you say that I have no right to propose legislation that you don't think is right.

Two falsehoods. (1) I have "indulged in" no personal attacks. (2) I have never (I say yet again) said that you can't propose any legislation you like.

The first is arguably a misunderstanding. The second is a deliberate and knowing lie.

On your personal attack I previously noted, your response to its "appropriateness" was that it was a true accusation (so it must be ok). Is that a new forum standard - that people can indulge in personal attacks just because they think they're true?

In this case, absolutely.

I used no insulting terms; I never wrote "hateful bigot" - you put those words in my mouth. I said that your only interest is in promoting discrimination against gays, and that is absolutely and inarguably the truth; you advocate denying the right to marry to gays while allowing it to adulterers, usurers, and everyone else, and that is by definition discrimination.

An absolutely true and civilly expressed statement that you happen to dislike is not a personal attack.

Get over it, Easy. Disagreeing with you doesn't make anyone either uncivil or evil.

I've made my position clear, via scripture, and via tradition. And mine is a legitimate position in numerous American churches, and even within various Jewish Orthodox circles. If you don't want to believe that then fine, but there's no point in going further with you, at least in this thread.

Have a nice day.

As if it's somehow illegitimate, uncivil, or not allowed for me to say "I disagree with you"?

I will allow the number of perfectly reasonable and civil arguments of mine that you have deleted and to which you refuse to respond speak for themselves. Your inability to actually debate this issue with anything other than imperious dogmatism is clear to everyone here.

You are patently running away and hiding from a series of cogent and on-point arguments that you cannot answer - yet again.

You have a nice day too.

And thanks - you couldn't have proven the illegitimacy and hypocrisy of your position any more conclusively if you'd been trying to do so.

[kayky]

According to the Bible, sin (unbiblical gay and straight relationships) brings God's disfavor and can eventually bring his judgment, so I wouldn't classify them as being "agape" love. Agape love puts the other person ahead of one's self and is self-sacrificing, so enticing one's partner into a sinful relationship is contrary to agape love. It actually does do harm to the other individual.

Since God does not intervene in human affairs in such a manner, this argument doesn't hold water.

[kayky]

I can grant that gays are gay due to nature, but how do you know that that should be taken as far as them being morally right in marrying? It seems most people have standards when it comes to marriage, like some not approving of polygamy, or incestuous marriages, etc. So can you prove your standards are correct over the Christian standards?

Logically speaking, if you don't have any proof that's not to say that your position is wrong, but it is to say that it's a belief just as the Christian standard is a belief.

The only "standard" that pertains to this situation is the Constitutional standard. There is no constitutional standard to validate denying marriage rights to one group of people in favor of another group of people.