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]

I realize Easyrider prefers to dodge my challenges to his claims, and is allowed to dodge or ignore these challenges in accordance with forum rules, so I gotta ask someone else to help sort these claims out.

Well, as I am not one sharing his beliefs I still find it in my full right to respond to the questions posed with the knowledge I have about the world. I hope this is okay, I am on my way out, just a quick response and I be back later.

What evidence is there that this God exists, this Heaven exists, and this God resides there?

None. Claims made by people without knowledge of the world needing a purpose and a way of coping with their lives.

How can we verify a given religious text accurately represents the wants or wishes of its proposed god?

Not possible. We need to accept it blindly.

As in they're gonna die? Is there any evidence "sinners" will meet some worse or lesser fate than believers?

Yes, homosexuals may be treated and discriminated against and even violently harmed by others of society, but that is before they die.

[McCulloch]

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.

Marriage is whatever we (collectively) decide that it will be. Some people are vegetarians others are omnivores. I really don't think that the detailed description of (male) homosexual activities was at all necessary or relevant. After all, they don't do anything that heterosexual couples are not allowed to do. They may be limited by biology, but since your objection has more to do with what they don't do rather than what they do, then I can only conclude that those details were inserted for the yuck factor. Hey, I, myself, am somewhat haemophobic but I don't believe that I have the right to advocate a law preventing couples from sexual activities during menstruation, regardless of the Biblical injunction.

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.

You speak as if infertility in married couples is always a matter of not being able to have children. There are responsible married couples who choose not to have children, for whatever reasons. Should they be denied marriage licenses? There is a lot more to having and raising children than the simple biological part. But it seems as though you wish to restrict the marriage license from those who may be able to provide a supportive home for children because they cannot fulfill the biological role.

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.

That is your point of view. I would suggest that you do not seek a homosexual relationship.

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

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

For y'all keeping score at home, that'll be cnorman18 For. The. Win!

As I noted elsewhere, this man just destroyed an entire thread worth of arguments.

Just a reminder that "cheerleading" or simply agreeing with a previous post is against the rules. This is not a one-liner, but would be considered an unproductive post.

[micatala]

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.

Would you say that those who voted for or supported Jim Crow laws were not persecuting blacks?

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.

You're welcome.

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.

Where in the Bible does it say it is OK for Christians to enforce their notion of sin on everyone else through the use of governmental authority, regardless of whether they are believers or not?

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.

I know we have been over this before, but even if we grant that scripture says gay sex is a sin, it also says cutting your hair certain ways is a sin. Wearing clothes of two different fibers is a sin. There are many sins spelled out in the OT and even some in the NT that we do not universally consider sin today, even among Christians.

Until you can answer this point, why should anyone consider your opinions on what is sinful to have any relevance to anyone's life but your own?


As far as God's jugdment, again you are welcome to your opinion. However, I would defy anyone to show any recent examples of this type of "national judgment" that can be attributed to God. I am singularly unpersuaded by vague scare tactics based on subjective and highly speculative predictions.

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

Can you point me to any laws which explicitly relate to people's eternal fates?

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

This is incorrect. My position, and you should know this well enough, absolutely does not ignore the Bible or possible consequences of sin.

You might remember that my position is that what is sinful for a person is between them and God. THis does not ignore the Bible, but is consistent with teachings like those found in Romans chapter 14.

I have also noted that we have precedence in the BIble for changing doctrine including what is sinful or lawful. See Acts chapter 15 where the Apostles acted to make almost the entire Mosaic law irrelevant for Gentiles. Note that the rationale for this was to avoid placing an undue burden on the Gentiles. Based on this precedent, why should we not consider other changes in our own day and age? Have we not too been given the keys to the kingdom of heaven or did that apply only to Peter or the other Apostles?




However, to get back to the topic, the issue is not whether or not gay sex should be considered sinful in all cases; the issue is whether traditional marriage is threatened by gay marriage. As a legal status, the question is not about sin but about the law.


This comment of yours does address the legal issues.

Jebus wrote:

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.

All laws discriminate against various behaviors. Laws against pedophilia discriminate against pedophiles, etc. So what?

By discrimination, we typically mean laws that treat people differently based only on who they are. Also, remember the constitution exists to "establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility . . . . and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . " Laws that limit liberty and cannot be shown necessary to the ends of the constitution go against the spirit and letter of that constitution.

Comparing pedophilia to bans on gay marriage indicates you seem unaware or unable to appreciate this distinction.

Pedophilia clearly victimizes children. It is an abuse of power on the part of an adult. There is very reasonable and constitutional rationale for "discriminating" against pedophilia.



There is no such rationale for banning gay marriage.

Legislating against sin is not a constitutional rationale. It is not even a biblical rationale.

[Jebus]

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.

I do not know what your deal is with this, but I will try to go straight to the point. Before I do that, I hope you realize that if I would ask the other members about your stated opinions, they would agree that you are homophobic and for persecution, this is what you stated both to my answers and to others. You just seem to deny it just after you made does claims, its really strange. But anyway, lets forget that and start from scratch.


Mr Easyrider, Why Is traditional marriage threatened by gay marriage?

I would like you to explain to me why and how homosexual marriages would threaten heterosexual ones. I am not concerned about your opinions, they are irrelevant to the topic, I want to know how, objectively, this is harmful to the society and to heterosexuals?

Furthermore, I would like to point out that several nations have already allowed homosexual marriages and they have it better then we do here in America. Can you explain that as it would contradict (something we are all use to by now) what you claimed.

With Respect
J

[Jester]

Moderator Opinion

I do not know what your deal is with this, but I will try to go straight to the point. Before I do that, I hope you realize that if I would ask the other members about your stated opinions, they would agree that you are homophobic and for persecution, this is what you stated both to my answers and to others. You just seem to deny it just after you made does claims, its really strange. But anyway, lets forget that and start from scratch.

If you want to forget about this, don't mention it.
While this comment is definitely not as bad as some we find on this site, it seems to be slowly drifting away from debate in the direction of ad hominem.

[Jebus]

Moderator Opinion

I do not know what your deal is with this, but I will try to go straight to the point. Before I do that, I hope you realize that if I would ask the other members about your stated opinions, they would agree that you are homophobic and for persecution, this is what you stated both to my answers and to others. You just seem to deny it just after you made does claims, its really strange. But anyway, lets forget that and start from scratch.

If you want to forget about this, don't mention it.
While this comment is definitely not as bad as some we find on this site, it seems to be slowly drifting away from debate in the direction of ad hominem.

Comeone, how can it be ad hominem? I just stated something that he is and he admitted that he is through his comments, and that it is strange that he at the same time contradict does statements and continuew to do so.

I am certainly not attacking his opinions, that is the point, I am attacking that he is, in a debate, lying to me over and over again and changing his opinions and deny what he already said (that he is for persecution and then say he is not, as an example).

I just need a basis to talk with him, he just cant jump back and forth, is that not against the rules? I asked, and always ask, a straight forward question, this is a debate forum, we are suppose to answer them, not ignore them.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment
If you don't already know, moderator comments can be challenged, but not publicly. I've sent you a private message in response.
Reply privately to me or some other moderator if you have any more questions or comments.

Thanks

[Easyrider]

Would you say that those who voted for or supported Jim Crow laws were not persecuting blacks?

I'd say they were persecuting them.

Where in the Bible does it say it is OK for Christians to enforce their notion of sin on everyone else through the use of governmental authority, regardless of whether they are believers or not?

Ask Obama, Pelosi, and Harry Reid. Did you vote for them? Shall we demand they step down?

Seriously, Romans 13, speaking of government, says that "God's servants" are agents of wrath on evildoers. And if they're in charge of dispensing justice on evildoers, then no doubt they are to have authority over lesser issues such as we're discussing. Second, since you occasionally like referencing the Constitution and the U.S. government, there's nothing there that says Christians can't submit legislation and vote on various issues like gay marriage, which we shot down here in Texas. And if there's enough support, we can amend the Constitution.

I know we have been over this before, but even if we grant that scripture says gay sex is a sin, it also says cutting your hair certain ways is a sin. Wearing clothes of two different fibers is a sin. There are many sins spelled out in the OT and even some in the NT that we do not universally consider sin today, even among Christians.

You're right, we've been over this ad nauseum. I submit God's MORAL Laws have never changed. Murder in the OT is still murder in the NT, etc. When you see admonitions against gay sex in both the OT and NT, then you have your confirmation that it's still in play.

As far as God's jugdment, again you are welcome to your opinion. However, I would defy anyone to show any recent examples of this type of "national judgment" that can be attributed to God.

Someone probably was asking for the same thing before the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., which Jesus foretold. And since God / Jesus has also foretold the judgments at the end of days in Revelation and elsewhere, I doubt anything has changed. But where is it written down. Perhaps in heaven. You're asking for something only God or a true prophet would likely have.

Can you point me to any laws which explicitly relate to people's eternal fates?

There's plenty of Biblical warnings and accounts of the Lake of Fire, etc.

My position, and you should know this well enough, absolutely does not ignore the Bible or possible consequences of sin. You might remember that my position is that what is sinful for a person is between them and God. THis does not ignore the Bible, but is consistent with teachings like those found in Romans chapter 14.

It's between men and other men too, when their sins start to adversely affect society - when Godly men and women can see that the same sins that brought down other nations are now taking place in their nation. Take Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance. Not trying to be ugly but you probably wouldn't have said or done anything early on to warn the evildoers, or try to turn any of them to repentance, would you, so the cities could be saved? After all, that's just between them and God, right? So there goes the neighborhood!

I'll continue more in another post.

[Easyrider]

I have also noted that we have precedence in the BIble for changing doctrine including what is sinful or lawful. See Acts chapter 15 where the Apostles acted to make almost the entire Mosaic law irrelevant for Gentiles. Note that the rationale for this was to avoid placing an undue burden on the Gentiles. Based on this precedent, why should we not consider other changes in our own day and age? Have we not too been given the keys to the kingdom of heaven or did that apply only to Peter or the other Apostles?

You've still got the issue of dire judgments, via Jesus, occurring in Revelation (why, if there's no standards?), and one of those is on Jezebel for advocating sexual immorality, so I'd be real careful about doing that sort of thing.

However, to get back to the topic, the issue is not whether or not gay sex should be considered sinful in all cases; the issue is whether traditional marriage is threatened by gay marriage. As a legal status, the question is not about sin but about the law.

It's about law if you want to ignore God. If you don't want your neighborhood to wind up like Sodom and Gomorrah I'd recommend you consider God's outlook too.

All laws discriminate against various behaviors. Laws against pedophilia discriminate against pedophiles, etc.

By discrimination, we typically mean laws that treat people differently based only on who they are. Also, remember the constitution exists to "establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility . . . . and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . " Laws that limit liberty and cannot be shown necessary to the ends of the constitution go against the spirit and letter of that constitution.

Early on at least some of the founding fathers understood that unless there is virtue, then liberty eventually fails. Again, Sodom and Gomorrah. They evidently had tons of liberties and look at what happened to them.

Comparing pedophilia to bans on gay marriage indicates you seem unaware or unable to appreciate this distinction. Pedophilia clearly victimizes children. It is an abuse of power on the part of an adult. There is very reasonable and constitutional rationale for "discriminating" against pedophilia.
There is no such rationale for banning gay marriage.

I don't believe I compared pedophilia to gay marriage. Rather, I used it as an example of how various laws are discriminatory against certain classes of people.

Legislating against sin is not a constitutional rationale. It is not even a biblical rationale.

Then you're ready to make murder legal? Murder is a moral law. It's also a sin.