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?

[Wellington]

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.

If that was a premise for a logical argument then I think christians should be allowed to marry but they should have to call it something different. Because that isn't anywhere under the application for a marriage certificate and people of other faiths may/may not believe any of that.

Perhaps christians should consider calling what they do....a civil union. You know, a term that means the same thing and is equal for all other purposes but seperate from everyone else.

[micatala]

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?

In this and other posts, Easyrider suggest gays are not persecuted, or at least not persecuted anymore than those who express anti-gay opinions are.

I think this shows a misunderstanding of what constitutes persecution.

Having someone disagree with your opinion is typically not persecution. I would say that neither Easyrider nor those who disagree with him are engaging in persecution simply by presenting their divergent opinions.


To me, persecution entails some material effect on the person being persecuted. Passing laws that limits a person's freedom, for example, is persecution. Jim Crow laws were persecution. Seperate and unequal treatment under the laws typically can be characterized as persecution.


I would suggest Easyrider's attempts to "level the playing field" are fallacious at best. Gays are and even more so in the past were the victims of demonstrable persecution on a wide spread basis. In the U.S., this currently does not happen to Christians on any kind of similar wide spread basis.

For example, Miss California has recently engendered lots of headlines because of the vehement response she got for her comments at the Miss America pageant. Now, I disagree with Miss CA, but she has a right to express her opinion, which she did. Others have a right to disagree with her, which they did. Some of them did so in vitriolic and over the top ways. Their behavior reflects poorly on them. Still, I have a hard time characterizing the response Miss CA got as persecution. Her free speech rights were not in any way violated.

She seems to have suffered no material harm.


Too bad we can't say the same for gays.

[Angel]

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.

That is assumptuous. How do you know there aren't objective morals that exists instead of just the Constitution? If God exists, and He intends on judging us then surely what this God has put in place as laws would apply as well, and even over man-made laws which are subjective or relative only to a particular culture.

If that was a premise for a logical argument then I think christians should be allowed to marry but they should have to call it something different. Because that isn't anywhere under the application for a marriage certificate and people of other faiths may/may not believe any of that.

Perhaps christians should consider calling what they do....a civil union. You know, a term that means the same thing and is equal for all other purposes but seperate from everyone else

Belief or agreement on something is not necessary for that something to exists. There are plenty of things we don't know about that still exists. I also think changing the name of something won't necessarily clear up the problem if you're still using the same meaning, that is a solemnized relationship or bond.

[Jebus]

Greetings Easyrider!
First of all, I am a bit disappointed, I asked two questions together with explanations to the questions, and you decided not to answer either of them, this makes me feel a bit foiled, I prefer people responding and if they dont, assume they do not have an answer. But anyway, to your questions then. (Which I will respond).

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).

Yes i've read the the Christian Holy Book, but my memory of it is not the best as of any book I read. Fortunately, we got the internet so this is not a problem.

I do not really know how and why the past view of sodomy is related to this issue. Maybe you could update me on that and think about that in most parts of the American states, blacks, or 'negros' as they where referred to, where not allowed to drink from the same fountain as whites.

But now they are, and we are falling apart.....
You see what i'm saying?

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)?

I sincerely apologize. I can only read your past threads and use that as a basis of what kind of person you are. As you are now saying you are not a homophobe and do not want to persecute homosexuals, I will ignore all other posts you made from this one, and start from scratch.

I.
Easyrider, do you think that homosexuals should have the same rights as you?

II.
Do you fear or dislike homosexuals in anyway?

We start from there to avoid confusion, this is a very difficult and complicated topic. Once again, I sincerely apologize, I must have misunderstood your previous posts.

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?

I did not say your opinion was wrong, I pointed out that the opinions you seemingly expressed where hateful and against a society caring for its people. You have expressed that this is not so, as you claim not to be a homophobe, I apologized for this previously and asked some questions to get a correct understanding of your view.

My opinions is based on what is good for the society as a whole. Not only America, but all people from all nations and ways of life. What is objectively good for people I stand behind.

Once again, I did not mean to offend you, I just used your previous posts as reference.

[kayky]

That is assumptuous. How do you know there aren't objective morals that exists instead of just the Constitution? If God exists, and He intends on judging us then surely what this God has put in place as laws would apply as well, and even over man-made laws which are subjective or relative only to a particular culture.

In the USA, the Constitution is the ultimate objective standard, moral or otherwise, for making laws. All this talk about God's judgment is irrelevant.

[McCulloch]

In the USA, the Constitution is the ultimate objective standard, moral or otherwise, for making laws.

The last time I checked, the US Constitution had an amending formula. Besides, some of us don't live in the US.

All this talk about God's judgment is irrelevant.

Not really. If God exists and God punishes societies for what they allow, then it is relevant. So, all that is left for those who wish to pursue this argument is to prove that God exists and that God judges societies for allowing homosexuality. Good luck with that.

[Angel]

In the USA, the Constitution is the ultimate objective standard, moral or otherwise, for making laws. All this talk about God's judgment is irrelevant.

The U.S. Constitution is what our laws are based on but that does not mean it's objective. The laws contained within it are not logically nor objectively proven standards as far as how mankind is suppose to function but rather they're man-made and cultural relative. My point earlier was about a morality that applies to reality, NOT simply what the United States thinks or does. I hope you notice that there is a difference between what's real or true to reality and what's true to a person or their country (or what that person or their country thinks is true). Objective morals would be morals that are true to reality and that everyone is suppose to follow. If they exists, and if they are different than the US laws then the US laws are irrelevant since they are subjective and man-made, especially if there's a God that exists and that is holding us accountable to those objective morals in which He'd ultimately judge us by. Even if there were no objective morals that apply to reality that would mean that every moral standard is a belief, that would include the Constitution so that would still fall in line with my earlier point.

[Angel]

The last time I checked, the US Constitution had an amending formula. Besides, some of us don't live in the US.

That is the case. There are over 20 states that have constitutional bans on gay marriage. Some of those same states don't even allow for civil or same-sex unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... s_by_state

(The map with the legend is easier to read).

[jmac2112]

Many pages ago, McCulloch and micatala raised many interesting points in response to one of my postings. Let me see if I can reduce at least most of them to the following objections, and then we can go from there:

1) While heterosexual marriage might be the ideal, why not allow other types of “marriage� in addition?

This is partly as issue of calling things by their true names.

Here’s one analogy. Bulimia doesn’t detract from the normal, nutritious eating of most people, and it may satisfiy the bulimics, but that doesn’t mean that we should call it “normal eating�. It’s still eating, of a sort, but it’s clearly disordered. There will be strenuous objections to my comparison of homosexual behavior to a recognized eating disorder, but, for instance, how is any less disordered for one man to insert his penis into another man’s anus and ejaculate sperm into fecal matter? I’m not being prurient here, I’m just stating a fact in clinical terms. The anus is a good place for the expulsion of fecal matter, but tends to tear and bleed when a penis is inserted into it. Whether or not you find this yucky, it’s definitely different from what a man and a woman do. How so? Well, the woman has a vagina, very conveniently located for the purposes of sex, and further inside are ovaries, which produce the eggs that need the sperm in order to be fertilized, and....well, you remember your biology, I’m sure. Gay men, on the other hand, are simply making do with what they’ve got, and if there were another orifice more convenient for the purpose, I’m sure they’d use that instead. My point is that the homosexual act is pretty random. The pleasure is the point, while the means are arbitrary. What bond people may experience in doing such things is a mystery to me, but it surely is not the same as the bond of sexual complementarity.

Marriage is not all about sex, of course, but it would hardly exist if there were no sex, and the nature of the sexual partners in question seems very germane. The term marriage has always referred to the union of a man and a woman in a sexually intimate bond. There are surely other sexually intimate arrangements, such as that enjoyed by two men; or two women; or two men and a pie; or three women; or four men, six women, and a donkey. The permutations are theoretically endless, though there are of course practical considerations, such as the issue of physical proximity. For instance, it would be hard for a thousand people to get close enough to one another to enjoy anything resembling intimacy.

Now I’m all for allowing gays to do what they do in the privacy of their own homes, not because I think it’s a good thing, but because I don’t think it’s the government’s job to try to fix everything, especially things that it can’t fix. I do draw the line at giving the name “marriage� to a union whose main distinguishing feature is the use of the reproductive organs in ways that have nothing to do with reproduction, and whose sexual bond involves no component of sexual complementarity.


2) What about heterosexuals who cannot have children for some reason? Should they not be allowed to marry?

In such cases we are not talking about sexual activity which has no connection to reproduction, but which happens not to lead to reproduction due either to disease or the aging of the body. Marriage obviously does not depend on the actual ability to have children, or else a couple would not be married during the woman’s infertile times in her cycle, and the marriage would be dissolved for good at menopause. In other words, although infertile marriages do not reach their natural fulfillment (children), they are oriented in that direction, and fail to reach fruition only because of some impediment beyond the control of the couple. Gay unions of their nature have absolutely nothing to do with reproduction. Sperm and fecal matter (or saliva, or a hand, or whatever) will never result in a baby.

Moreover, as I have said before, there is also the fact that the union between man and woman retains its complementary nature regardless of the issue of offspring. The relationship of a gay couple, though it may be fulfilling to them, is not complementary in this way. Hence the joke about how it would be great to be gay, so you could have sex and watch football at the same time and your partner wouldn’t mind. Now that is doubtless an exaggeration, but I’ve heard forms of that joke many times, and it always gets a laugh. Why? Because it’s based on a truism that (almost) everyone understands, namely that men and women are different, and that masculinity and femininity in isolation tend toward ridiculous extremes. When you put them together, a nice balance can be achieved.

So, calling a de facto fruitless union between a man and a woman “marriage� is still accurate, and does not involve the violence to meaning involved in calling gay unions “marriages.�


3) But there is still the “love-making�or “unitive� aspect of sex, in which the couple draws closer through intimacy. Why should gay unions not be called “marriage� on the strength of this bond of intimacy, even if it is different from that experience by heterosexuals?

Although I agree that the begetting of children is not the only purpose of marriage, it is this purpose that society is concerned with when it comes to marriage. Marriage is an institution that is both personal and social in nature. It is probably fair to say that a couple getting married is usually more concerned, at least in the beginning, with the “unitive� aspect of their relationship, while the society that grants the marriage license is concerned with the stability of any family that may result from their union. If sex never led to babies, I’m not sure anyone would consider it the business of society whether or not two people made a commitment to one another, any more than society attempts to regulate who you date. I mean, society would be better off if everyone were emotionally satisfied in their relationships, but do you really think marriage as a social institution would exist if that were its aim? Would we really bother?



4) But if “gay marriage� makes some people happy and doesn’t harm heterosexual marriage, what’s the big deal?

I’ve already said that I think that the issue of “gay marriage� is more of a symptom of the decline of marriage than its cause. However, this same issue is being used in turn as a weapon by those who would like to further the destruction of the traditional understanding of marriage, or perhaps just to legitimate the damage that has already been done. The “old� understanding of marriage as a life-long commitment of a man and a woman issuing in offspring whose upbringing, in addition to being a private concern, is a serious social obligation which must not be neglected just because the couple has “fallen out of love�, stands in stark contrast to the “easy-breezy� notion of marriage that a lot of people would (understandably) like to embrace—the notion of marriage that I earlier characterized as “dating-plus�. Already, society has largely forgotten why it even has the institution of marriage to begin with, and “getting married� is seen by many young people as an old-fashioned and almost pointless custom. Indeed, why not grant such a small concession to gays, when it means so little to us, and is hardly more than society’s way of saying “You’re OK�? Well, there are some of us who would like to see the institution of marriage revived, and we think that a logical place to start is by stopping this latest nail from being driven into the coffin. For us, marriage is not about fruitless unions involving the random rubbing of body parts, but about fruitfulness; it is not just about the couple in question, but about society; it is not about sameness, but about sexual complementarity, both in the couple's relationship with each other and with their children. It’s about a mother and a father bringing life into the world; it’s about everything that a woman brings to the raising of a child, and everything that a man brings, it’s also about what a man and a woman bring to each other, the way they correct each other’s defects and excesses. Done right, it’s a very happy thing, but it’s not “gay�. The fact that it is often done badly is no reason to redefine it into something else. Lowering the bar doesn’t fix anything.

I realize that I did not address many of micatala’s points directly, but I think that most of them were answered along the way, or else shown to be irrelevant to this discussion, such as:

Can you give me an example of something that is good for a society that is not good for the individuals in the society?

For the record, no.

And no, I'm pretty sure it isn't the children of gay couples who have been stealing my street sign, but I'll try to catch them so I can find out. I promise not to treat them any differently one way or the other.

[Goat]

The last time I checked, the US Constitution had an amending formula. Besides, some of us don't live in the US.

That is the case. There are over 20 states that have constitutional bans on gay marriage. Some of those same states don't even allow for civil or same-sex unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... s_by_state

(The map with the legend is easier to read).

yet, there have been states that have passed laws permitting same gender marriage.