The Contradictions of Gay "Marriage"
The Contradictions of Gay “Marriage”
There is an inherent problem with the gay “marriage” movement, and it lies with the claims of its proponents. On the one hand, they claim that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”, yet on the other hand, they claim that they are gay because “God made them that way”, i.e. it’s in their genes that they like to get into each other’s jeans.
Horse apples and cow pies. Let’s address the points sequentially.
Take at face value the second statement. If you believe that homosexuality is genetically determined, then it is not a choice any more than eye color or skin color is a choice. Therefore, it logically inconsistent to say that a person can enter or exit a lifestyle of homosexuality whenever they want. Not that I agree with that conclusion, but it is the logical conclusion of genetic homosexuality.
Now let’s assume that the first statement is true, that is, homosexuality is a lifestyle and not genetically determined. If that is true, then gay “marriage” is no more a civil rights issue than cyclists wanting a wider bike lane for their lifestyle. To call it such is to demean other, more important social and civil rights issues like the right to vote.
Gay “marriage” advocates have some explaining to do. If, on the one hand, they believe in the lifestyle choice, they should apologize for denigrating the struggles of the black community in their fight for true civil rights throughout the 50s and 60s. However, if they believe in the gay gene, then how in the world could someone convert from homosexuality to heterosexuality? How could someone ever even want to be gay if they didn’t have an active gay gene? It would be like a man becoming a woman at the chromosome level (an X-Y to X-X conversion).
The conclusion that I draw is that homosexuality is a conversion at the mental level, not one at the cellular level. There is a conscious mental choice that is made, sometimes over the course of several decades, where a person agrees with the homosexual lifestyle to a point where they begin practicing it. If a person ever switches back, that is known as repentance.
No, I’m not afraid of using a Bible word in the context of the marriage debate. If homosexuals want to claim that God made them that way, they should prepared to deal with the whole enchilada of Biblical belief, not just piecemeal extractions for the sake of their prostrations.
Failures of conversion efforts are not a proof of genetic homosexuality, but rather an expos? of the failure of the methods used. If someone wants to be gay they will stay that way. If, however, someone is having questions about their supposedly inherent homosexuality, the conversion efforts are more likely to succeed, all the more so if Biblical means of conversion are used. A proof of genetic homosexuality would have to explain, scientifically, why a converted homosexual man no longer desires other men, not just rely on the explainable failures of the opponents of gay genetics.
These necessary explanations are added to the list of unanswered questions as to why society should adopt gay “marriage”. We’re still waiting on an adequate answer from the gays to Romans 1. We’re still waiting on how they plan to lower the divorce rate instead of increase it. We’re still waiting for a list of why it takes marriage and not other changes in law for a homosexual to visit their dying partner in a hospital. We’re still waiting for an explanation and proof that homosexuality is a better way of parenting children. We’re still waiting, and all we hear are demands that demean Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. These inherent problems have not been addressed.
I’m not holding my breath.
Straw-man, straw-man, burning bright,
why with the dread opponent fight,
when one can set a straw-man alight?
Mike, you still haven’t answered any of these points.
Your cheap doggerel only makes a claim,
yet your argument seems simply lame.
Have you been lighting a few joints?
Ok, now for a proper response, although it is kind of scattergun and long-winded.
In your article you attack gay marriage based on the arguments that is either a ?civil rights? issue or that gayness is inborn/genetic/not a choice. The part major part of your paper focuses on the ?gayness is inherent/genetic, so then homosexuality is a legitimate sexual orientation and as a legitimate orientation, gays should not be denied the monogamous marriage rights the other legitimate orientation has." line of arguments for gay marriage. And then you proceed to attack the "gayness is inherent" premise of this argument so that gay marriage can then be rejected under your third paragraph ?lifestyle= no civil right? argument. But that argument is a straw-man as it is not a very strong argument for legal gay marriage and is almost a red herring as the morality of gay marriage, (which that argument seems at least partially based on, I could be wrong) arguably does not come into the debate of whether or not gays should legally be allowed to marry. But it is a legitimate argument that some probably hold, it is simply not a very good one, and with the "civil rights" argument whether or not gayness is inherent is actually irrelevant.
The strongest argument for gay marriage being legal (at least that I’ve heard/can think of) is the argument from Libertarianism, which is the "your rights begin where another’s ends", "you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t interfere with the rights of another," etc. I’m sure you know what Libertarianism is. In short the argument is that it is none of the government’s business what you do with yourself and your property as long as you do not interfere with someone else’s rights to use their property and act as they see fit, and hence who you marry is none of the government’s business as long as it?s consensual.
You do mention a form of this argument in your third paragraph where you address gay marriage as a ?civil rights? issue and take a swipe at it with a question-begging analogy. It begs the question as in order to attack gay marriage as a libertarian/civil rights issue, you have to attack libertarianism. Your analogy of the bicycle lane assumes libertarianism to not be true, as it assumes government has the right to interfere in what in a libertarian society would be a private matter, and so you seem to argue so it has the right to interfere in the private matters such as marriage because it has already interfered in a private matter. But you never address whether or not government actually has that right.
So back to the topic of gayness as a ?civil rights? issue which is the heart of the gay marriage debate. You seem to argue gays do not have the right to marry because it is a lifestyle/hobby. But how does that follow? Are you arguing that the government has the right to determine who is married and is under no obligation to ?widen the lane? of marriage for the queer hobbyists? How does the government have the right to interfere with my hobbies anyway?
The problem seems to be what you think our rights are and where you believe our rights come from. You do not seem to think one has a right to a lifestyle choice or hobby, at least that is the implication of your argument, I don?t know if you hold that view or not. But under the logic you used to ban gay marriage as a lifestyle choice akin to cycling, you can ban any lifestyle choices hobbies you don?t like such as drugs, gambling, drinking, or target shooting.
Your gun ownership is a lifestyle choice/hobby is it not? What gives you the right to own guns? The Constitution? that would be the government itself as the government can change the constitution. If the government repealed the second amendment would you still have the right to own a gun? If you say ?no? then you do not have the right to own a gun even now, but instead you have only a government granted privilege. But you would think the repeal of the second amendment would be the government not recognizing a right we have independent of whether or not the government acknowledges it right?
The point is that we have rights independent of what rights the government recognizes, so your argument that government has the right to interfere in the private matter of marriage because it interfered in the private matter of roads is circular reasoning. If roads were privately owned and gays were legally allowed to marry, then gay marriage would be just as much a civil rights issue as widening a bike lane as both cases then would be a private issue between private parties and not involve the government at all.
If government has the right to ban private lifestyle choices like gambling or drugs, it also has the right to take away your guns. That pesky second amendment could be removed by the government after-all. And many liberals regard guns as evil similar to the way you regard gay marriage as evil, so do you really want government to be able to ban what someone else considers immoral but that doesn?t actually interfere with the rights of those who want it banned?
What happens if in the future a pacifistic Christianity gained power/influence and the government decided to ban guns as "evil tools of violence"? Or is it only OK to legislate your sect’s Christianity because it is the right one? And isn’t that the kind of thing our form of government tries to prevent; a theology hi-jacking the government and using it to legislate it’s morality and run the country like it’s a theocracy?
It seems to me that if you think the government has a right to legislate your or any other religion’s morality you don’t really believe in freedom/liberty, but are instead a Theocrat trying to pull a coup.
So gay marriage should be allowed as it is a private matter that does not impugn on the rights of anyone else and the government should not get involved if you accept libertarianism as the basis of what the government’s role is.
So where do our rights come from? What right does the government have to interfere in a private matter where no one else?s rights are infringed? Gay marriage does not effect you or your rights at all does it?
And now for some arguments from a more Christian point of view. If you respond to that last by saying ?it cheapens/dirties marriage/ my right to marry? or something along those lines, I would respond by pointing out that marriage is a sacred/divine institution. You yourself are married, in who?s eyes are you married? The State?s/Man?s or God?s? If you say ?both?, I would ask if one wouldn?t acknowledge your marriage, would it count because the other did? If you are married in Man?s eyes are you then indisputably married in God?s eyes? And if Man rejects your marriage is your marriage then rejected by God?
The point is that a marriage is a marriage because God recognizes it and it doesn’t matter if Man recognizes it or not. God determines who is married and not Man. For the State to say it can determine who is or isn’t married is a usurpation of God’s authority even if the State’s determination lines up with God’s. And to say the State has the right to determine who is or isn’t married is idolatry as it is giving the State power that is God’s. And the State has no right to meddle in church affairs which is what it is doing by defining marriage and determining who is married.
So in order to argue that marrying gays should be illegal you need to argue against libertarianism and argue that the government has the right to interfere in purely private and/or church issues. Ideally it should be legal to marry gays but the gays should find no one willing to marry them. Gays being married is the result of a decline in theology that passing a law will not fix.
As far as the State recognizing marriage for taxes and other purposes, that is something the government shouldn’t be doing anyway. Government should not be in the business of recognizing straight marriages either. That is also a private/church affair.
So in conclusion, gays should legally be allowed to married, not because it is morally acceptable, but because marriage is an issue for the Church and/or individuals and not the State. It is up to them to determine who they will marry, not the State. And in order to argue that gay marriage should be banned, you need to argue that private and church matters are the State’s business.
And a couple more things, although my main argument is the above.
I didn’t address your arguments against the inherentness of gayness because 1. I’m not sure I disagree, 2. debating the point would require research which I haven’t done, and 3. it is irrelevant to my argument as I think it works either way.
This statement in your fourth paragraph was interesting considering the two sentences surrounding it.
"How could someone ever even want to be gay if they didn’t have an active gay gene?"
Care to explain this sentence? Is it a typo? Anyways, congratulations on contradicting your own argument. Why would someone consciously and willfully choose to join a marginalized and vilified until recently lifestyle if they didn’t already have some sort of pre-disposition to it? Maybe gayness is related to masochism if it really is a choice?
Now let’s look at your last paragraph’s points.
"We’re still waiting on an adequate answer from the gays to Romans 1. "
The morality of gay marriage does not automatically mean it shouldn’t be legal. This is a free society is it not?
"We’re still waiting on how they plan to lower the divorce rate instead of increase it."
Straw-man and good argument against straight marriage too. Why don’t we just target the socio-economic or ethnic group that has the highest divorce rate and ban them from getting married too? Should someone’s rights be taken away because some or even a large portion of people might abuse it? I’ll bet you’d rail against that kind of logic when it’s used to argue for gun control. Would the hypothetical case that 75% of gun owners are violent thugs be grounds that you would accept the repeal of the 2nd amendment on? Or would you argue that other people abusing their rights is not grounds to take away your rights?
"We’re still waiting for a list of why it takes marriage and not other changes in law for a homosexual to visit their dying partner in a hospital."
Red-herring. As you yourself point out, this argument is about hospital policy and not marriage.
"We’re still waiting for an explanation and proof that homosexuality is a better way of parenting children."
Straw-man. I have never seen this asserted before. I have seen it argued gay parents are the equal of straight parents, but never that they are superior to them.
Long-winded and shotgun-like indeed, but worth a response. However, the thought put into your response dictates continuing this in another posting, lest this one grow too long for the impatient to read. See Why I vote the way I do – homosexuality, an upcoming essay.