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?

[kayky]

I don't believe you. We know a lot about what Jesus thought by what he taught.

Now if we could just be sure about what he taught...

Then two adulterers in love with each other as they destroy their respective families is a good thing to you?

Betraying a vow you have made to another is not an act of love. This has no relevance to gay marriage.

What's next? Supporting marriage for three men and two women? After all, who is anyone to discriminate against others?

You are exactly right. I can think of no valid reason to make illegal plural marriage among consenting adults.

Well there you have it!

Yup. There it is...

[kayky]

Sorry you were offended. Let me rephrase that as best I can without being more politically correct:

Being born black isn't a sin. But according to the Bible, gay sex is, and unlike being born black, it's a deliberate sin (i.e. it has to be contemplated and a behavior deliberately carried out). There's no comparison, IMO.

That's the best I can do for you.

I do appreciate the change, but I want to point out that it is not an issue of "political correctness." It is a matter of common courtesy. We are real people out here, you know.

[Easyrider]

Then two adulterers in love with each other as they destroy their respective families is a good thing to you?

Betraying a vow you have made to another is not an act of love. This has no relevance to gay marriage.

But wait. You said, "And there is nothing unvirtuous about love, no matter how it is expressed."

You're contradicting yourself.

Now you say if someone does something morally wrong but they still love each other, then that's a no-no?

Seems to me that's exactly what I'm saying too.

[Easyrider]

Sorry you were offended. Let me rephrase that as best I can without being more politically correct:

Being born black isn't a sin. But according to the Bible, gay sex is, and unlike being born black, it's a deliberate sin (i.e. it has to be contemplated and a behavior deliberately carried out). There's no comparison, IMO.

That's the best I can do for you.

I do appreciate the change, but I want to point out that it is not an issue of "political correctness." It is a matter of common courtesy. We are real people out here, you know.

Yes, gays are real people worthy of respect. But this has to do with gay marriage, which I still contend is unbiblical, based on gay sex being identified as a sin in scripture.

[kayky]

But wait. You said, "And there is nothing unvirtuous about love, no matter how it is expressed."

You're contradicting yourself.

Now you say if someone does something morally wrong but they still love each other, then that's a no-no?

Seems to me that's exactly what I'm saying too.

This only reveals your shallow understanding of morality. Love does no harm. If the act you are engaged in is causing harm to another, it is not love. There is no contradiction--it just has nothing to do with the marriage of two people who love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation.

[kayky]

Yes, gays are real people worthy of respect. But this has to do with gay marriage, which I still contend is unbiblical, based on gay sex being identified as a sin in scripture.

I wasn't referring to gay people, Easyrider. I'm talking about your fellow posters.

[Easyrider]

But wait. You said, "And there is nothing unvirtuous about love, no matter how it is expressed."

You're contradicting yourself.

Now you say if someone does something morally wrong but they still love each other, then that's a no-no?

Seems to me that's exactly what I'm saying too.

This only reveals your shallow understanding of morality. Love does no harm. If the act you are engaged in is causing harm to another, it is not love. There is no contradiction--it just has nothing to do with the marriage of two people who love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation.

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.

[Scotracer]

Will this be before or after America joins the Romans and other immoral nations who have self-destructed due to moral decay?

Please provide evidence or reasoning that supports it was the "sins" of a nation/empire such as those that caused their demise.

You can start with the Old Testament, which IMO is historical in that regard. Just take a long hard look at Israel - in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations. Then read Genesis 15:66, which speaks about when the "sin of the Amorites reaches its full measure..." Then look what happened to them.

Can you name me one sin that isn't prevalent in America that wasn't also prevalent in Sodom and Gomorrah when it was destroyed?

Again, you are having to resort to the bible which holds little historicity (particularly the OT) and nothing more than the claim that your biblical god destroyed them because they were naughty. We don't even have an archaeological consensus on whether they existed!

I'd like a more modern example to confirm this. It just appears to be a religious conspiracy theory, more than anything.

If you want a counter-argument, how do you explain the other countries that endorse "sin" but are thriving and named as some of the best places to live - Canada, Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc etc.

[Easyrider]

If you want a counter-argument, how do you explain the other countries that endorse "sin" but are thriving and named as some of the best places to live - Canada, Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc etc.

You could certainly say a number of those nations took a good shellacking in World War II, right?

[Scotracer]

If you want a counter-argument, how do you explain the other countries that endorse "sin" but are thriving and named as some of the best places to live - Canada, Sweden, Norway, Japan, etc etc.

You could certainly say a number of those nations took a good shellacking in World War II, right?

And that can be, directly, and completely attributed to human actions. Why the need for a god to get his hand into it with respect to sin? MANY countries in WW2 got the crap bombed out of them in WW2.