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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 17 Post 169:

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

That's about the weakest argument I've heard in all my born days. Marriage is what we as a society deem it to be, and not what one religious perspective desires it to be.

I won't bother with the "bulimia as marriage" analogy, as it seeks to attribute one certifiable disorder for a condition not recognized as a disorder except by those least able to make a diagnosis.

Gay men, on the other hand, are simply making do with what they’ve got...

And yet there are those that would take this away from them.

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.

By what measure? Your own sexual preferences?

That homosexuals derive pleasure from their otherwise harmless acts should be reason enough to leave them to do and live as they please.

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.

Bull feathers. You clearly don't accept homosexuals as equal human beings, and are projecting your personal sexual preferences onto them.

Nothing you have stated goes beyond the level of personal opinion, and as such should be considered no more relevant than your unfounded assertions allow.

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.

In the name of all those married folks that choose not to have children, I condemn your claiming such marriages can't reach "natural fulfillment". Again, you project your opinion about what constitutes a valid marriage onto others.

Gay unions of their nature have absolutely nothing to do with reproduction.

Says you. There are many homosexual couples that strive to have children. Again, that you only recognize marriage as a means to childbirth has no bearing, or merit, on what others consider their marriages to be.

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.

Yes, you've made it perfectly clear you will only accept those marriages that comport with your own opinion about what a "proper" marriage should be.

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.

This says nothing about those homosexual couples where one is more masculine/feminine than the other. Further, it is more of you projecting your own opinion about what constitutes a proper marriage onto others.
If a masculine gay man wants to marry another masculine gay man, who are we to say this is wrong? Why should our opinion of what constitutes a "proper" marriage have any bearing whatsoever on another?

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.�

That you consider any change to your concept of marriage to be "violent" speaks volumes about how dearly you hold your opinion. It says nothing at all about the validity of a marriage between folks who are deeply committed to each other.

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.

So says you. The fact that so many "societies" are allowing gay marriages indicates to me they have moved on from simplistic, opinionated notions of what a "proper" marriage should be.

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.

Again you show your bias that marriage must be for the creation of a family, rather than the legal issues involved (visitation, medical decisions, etc.)

By your logic, we could condemn heterosexual marriage based on the potential harms such may cause any resultant children. Your "childless" gay couple would seem the ideal candidate for a marriage that produces no harm to offspring.

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.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is that homosexual are seeking the same rights others have had. Only now they have that unknown critical mass to really assert themselves.

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.

Again, that you see "destruction" where others see "finally allowing folks to make their own decisions is quite telling.

The “old� understanding of marriage...

Well said. It is 2009, surely we can discard those ancient notions that are not worthy, and quite discriminatory.

Well, there are some of us who would like to see the institution of marriage revived...

LOL. The number of married folks could rise if homosexuals weren't being thwarted at every turn.

Again, its 2009, surely we can discard those notions that are no longer relevant.

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.

Sounds an awful lot like "I don't accept any marriage that doesn't comport to what I consider 'proper'".

It’s about a mother and a father bringing life into the world...

More doubletalk? Awhile back you said those unions that don't produce children are okay. Now here you are condemning such by implication.

Make up our mind.

Lowering the bar doesn’t fix anything.

I don't see the bar moving, just more folks passing under/over it.

[Scotracer]

Without going down the "dirty" route too far I'd say that it's more important who you are having sex with than what type of sex you are having that truly makes the difference. I can guarantee that one would say having sex with either someone they were in love with or was strongly sexually attracted to would be better than someone they were barely attracted to (of the opposite sex still).

So to say heterosexual sex is better is a purely subjective statement as if you are not attracted to someone of the same sex, how on earth would you enjoy it as much? (Notice how I said "as much"...you don't know until you try )

[cnorman18]

How easy it is to condemn others for sins to which we ourselves are not tempted...

[Easyrider]

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.

I submitted that I wasn't persecuting gays. I know many gays are persecuted.

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.

Thank you.

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.

Now if there wasn't a God in heaven who clearly said on a number of occasions that gay sex was a sin, you would have a good point.

Once again, sin (gay and straight) is an affront to God, and brings his disfavor on men and nations, and can certainly lead to judgment. That's very clear in scripture.

Plus, if gay and straight sinners won't repent like Jesus told them to, their eternal fate is in grave doubt.

That's what's wrong with your whole position. It totally ignores God's word and temporal and eternal consequences.

[Easyrider]

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.

Besides the scriptural basis for gay sex being a sin, the historical laws in the U.S. against sodomy with men (and in some cases women), provide a traditional basis for my beliefs that gay sex and gay marriage are wrong.

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.

That's irrelevant to this thread subject, IMO.

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)?

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

Pretty much, except the legalization of gay marriage.

Do you fear or dislike homosexuals in anyway?[/b]

Not unless they start with the bigot and homophobe allegations and name-calling and things like that, which some in the pro-gay community do quite frequently.

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?

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.

What if the God of the Bible were real and said if people (including gays) don't repent of their sins (including straight and gay sex sin) and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior for the remission of their sins, then they stand a real good chance of winding up in hell for eternity? Would that change your thinking any?

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.

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

That's cool. Remember, the majority of Americans, Californians, Texans, etc., disapprove of gay marriage. So pro-gay marriage is a minority viewpoint.

Why do you support a minority viewpoint on this instead of the majority viewpoint?

p.s. My personal views are based in large part on the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ and the other Old and New Testament writers.

God bless.

[Jebus]

That's irrelevant to this thread subject, IMO.

You mentioned it.

Pretty much, except the legalization of gay marriage.

Mr Easyrider, then you do not think homosexuals should have the same rights as you. That means you are for discrimination against homosexuals, which stated earlier.

Several others have pointed this out, but now you stated this to me. Why do you then say, later on, that you are for equality and same rights, when you do not agree with this? Its just a huge contradiction on your part.

If you limit rights to other people that are equal to you, then you do not consider other people to have the same legal rights as you, which was the question. You should have responded "No, I do not think that homosexuals should have the same rights as me", and everything would be fine, and I know your stance. Instead you ocntradict yourself, why?

Not unless they start with the bigot and homophobe allegations and name-calling and things like that, which some in the pro-gay community do quite frequently.

Okay, so here you declare that you do nor fear and have anything against homosexuals, which is the definition of homophobe. But also declare that if someone claims something (you do not state what) you would have something against them......

...So your sentence gives a No with a rounding contradiction, once again. Why? If you do not like homosexuals, fine, just tell me so, but dont say that you are not a homophobe and then become homophobic, it makes no sense Mr Easyrider, this is an debate, I wish to debate with you, have an exchange, but you need to stop these contradictions.

What if the God of the Bible were real and said if people (including gays) don't repent of their sins (including straight and gay sex sin) and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior for the remission of their sins, then they stand a real good chance of winding up in hell for eternity? Would that change your thinking any?

What if Oden is real and said people don't repent and do as he asks? The question is not relevant to me as I am not a Christian nor do I believe in gods.

That's cool. Remember, the majority of Americans, Californians, Texans, etc., disapprove of gay marriage. So pro-gay marriage is a minority viewpoint.

Why do you support a minority viewpoint on this instead of the majority viewpoint?

p.s. My personal views are based in large part on the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ and the other Old and New Testament writers.

God bless.

So?
Are you saying that if the majority of Americans considered black people to be inferior and should be caged, you agree?

I do not care what majority thinks, I use what is objectively good for the people as a reference, and the rights for two woman to marry if they so wish, is their sole right and none of my business. What objective cause do you have to prevent them which would harm society?

[Angel]

I do not care what majority thinks, I use what is objectively good for the people as a reference, and the rights for two woman to marry if they so wish, is their sole right and none of my business. What objective cause do you have to prevent them which would harm society?

An objective good? Can you please prove logically or objectively how you know that same-sex marriage is morally good. How do you logically or objectively know that the purpose or standard of marriage involves same-sex? In other words, please prove why your standard is truly correct and the Christian standard is wrong. Otherwise, all you're asserting is your belief.

[Jester]

I do not care what majority thinks, I use what is objectively good for the people as a reference, and the rights for two woman to marry if they so wish, is their sole right and none of my business. What objective cause do you have to prevent them which would harm society?

An objective good? Can you please prove logically or objectively how you know that same-sex marriage is morally good. How do you logically or objectively know that the purpose or standard of marriage involves same-sex? In other words, please prove why your standard is truly correct and the Christian standard is wrong. Otherwise, all you're asserting is your belief.

I think this is an interesting tangent.
On what basis do we decide what is good or bad?
I tend to argue that ethics are ultimately grounded in what people consider to believe the purpose of human life to be. Religious answers to this question tie the meaning of life to their God or gods. Secular answers tend to assert that human life and wishes are good based on a non-intellectual position of personal conscience.
Are either of these answers superior to the other? Does either one clearly show that same-sex marriage is good, bad, or neutral?

[Goat]

I do not care what majority thinks, I use what is objectively good for the people as a reference, and the rights for two woman to marry if they so wish, is their sole right and none of my business. What objective cause do you have to prevent them which would harm society?

An objective good? Can you please prove logically or objectively how you know that same-sex marriage is morally good. How do you logically or objectively know that the purpose or standard of marriage involves same-sex? In other words, please prove why your standard is truly correct and the Christian standard is wrong. Otherwise, all you're asserting is your belief.

Is that not the same for heterosexual marriage? The question is, how does 'gay marriage' threaten 'traditional marriage'?

How does two men or two women getting married to each other threaten traditional marriage. I wonder how many people who object to gay marriage have been divorced multiple times?

[Scotracer]

I do not care what majority thinks, I use what is objectively good for the people as a reference, and the rights for two woman to marry if they so wish, is their sole right and none of my business. What objective cause do you have to prevent them which would harm society?

An objective good? Can you please prove logically or objectively how you know that same-sex marriage is morally good. How do you logically or objectively know that the purpose or standard of marriage involves same-sex? In other words, please prove why your standard is truly correct and the Christian standard is wrong. Otherwise, all you're asserting is your belief.

I think this is an interesting tangent.
On what basis do we decide what is good or bad?
I tend to argue that ethics are ultimately grounded in what people consider to believe the purpose of human life to be. Religious answers to this question tie the meaning of life to their God or gods. Secular answers tend to assert that human life and wishes are good based on a non-intellectual position of personal conscience.
Are either of these answers superior to the other? Does either one clearly show that same-sex marriage is good, bad, or neutral?

I could go on about this topic for hours.

One can definitely see some evolutionary basis behind morality but when you get down to a society level we sort of hit a dead-end. For instance, the views 50-100 years ago were drastically different to today - that isn't enough time for evolution to have had an effect on the mentality of people.

Why was inter-racial marriage a problem 50 years ago? Why is gay marriage a problem then and now? Why are black people treated equal today but not 100 years ago?

One cannot base this upon scripture as the scripture hasn't changed in that time-span so that can't be a contributing factor.

A new thread, me thinks:

What dictates taboo and what is good?