Shop More Submit  Join Login
×

:iconhisarcher19: More from hisarcher19


Featured in Collections

Political Social Religious by amanda2324

Stories by ForsakenDreamsTheif

Journals by Vexic929


More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
December 20, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
631
Favourites
18 (who?)
Comments
272
×
As the title implies, I'm going to look at the "gay-rights" arguments that really scrape the bottom of the barrel.  I hope that whatever side of the debate your on, you can agree that these arguments don't hold water.  To emphasize this, I'm going to try to sound as neutral as possible.

1. Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution.  So you can't use Christian morality to outlaw same-sex marriage.

This argument stems from a misunderstanding of what Separation of Church and State is.  The phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.  It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church that was worried Jefferson would force his Deism on the churches.  Jefferson assured them the first amendment would protect their freedom.  So the question is, what does the first amendment do?  It prevents the government from establishing a state religion.  Outlawing same-sex marriage does not establish a religion.  It doesn't force anyone to become a Christian anymore than it forces them to be Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or any other faith that sees homosexuality as sin.  Also, it doesn't prevent anyone from using their religion to motivate their politics.  If you truly believe your religion, it should influence your decisions or you should consider if you truly believe it or not.  You want real Separation of Church and State?  How about having the government butt out of marriage entirely since it finds its origin in religion and different religions have different views of marriage anyway (e.g. Islam and some forms of Mormonism permit polygamy.)

2. The way things are, the LGBT community are 2nd class citizens.

No they aren't.  They have the same rights everyone else does.  Including marriage.  To elaborate, a homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not someone of the same sex.  And a heterosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex.  We have equal rights.  The LGBT goal would make more sense if they asked for a new right since the equality they ask for already exist.

3. It's unconstitutional to out-law same-sex marriage since marriage is a right.

Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege.  If you read the Constitution you'd know that.  And again, my previous points stand.

4. Homosexuality is accepted by the majority as normal and thus, no longer immoral.

First off, I doubt the claim at the majority support it since most states ban same-sex marriage and (as of this writing) only 17 states allow it.  Last I checked, 17 out of 50 was not a majority.  Second, even if that was true, to say that the population decides right and wrong is insane at best and dangerous at worst.  There was a time when slavery was considered acceptable by many.  Years before even that it was common for people to rape the women of the country they conquered.  Was any of this right?  (Rhetorical question.  If you answer "yes", please see a therapist.)  To quote Leo Tolstoy:
Wrong doesn't cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.-Leo Tolstoy
5. People are born homosexual, so it would be wrong to not allow them what they want.

Some scientists speculate the same thing about alcoholics, drug-addicts and sociopaths.  Does that make what they do right? (Again, a rhetorical question.)  If this were true, these conditions would be more like diseases.  But as someone I know (who was an alcoholic) put it, what he did wasn't totally involuntary.  He chose to get drunk just as he chose to stop and ultimately kick alcoholic beverages out of his life all together.  Just as people have left the LGBT lifestyle.

6. What about infertile couples?  They can't have children either and your Bible says marriage is for having babies.

This argument is a reply to oft-quoted argument against same-sex marriage by pointing out that same-sex couples can't naturally produce a child.  There counterpoint, however, is a strawman.  This may shock some people, but the Bible says sex (in wedlock) was not only for child rearing but for pleasure.  It was designed to be a beautiful experience... then humanity ruined it like everything else.  Proof?  Song of Songs. :iconnuffsaidplz:  Besides, homosexual behavior causes serious health problem.  HIV being only a tip of the ice-berg.  An infertile couple is still natural and, as long as they are being responsible and faithful, they won't contract STDs.

7. People used religion (i.e. Christianity) to justify not letting interracial couples marriage.

Those people were also stupid.  The Bible is shown to be very anti-racist, including having interracial couples (like Ruth and Boaz.)  And another thing, PLEASE stop equating what you do to the way other people look.  It's nonsensical at best and insensitive at worst.
For more info, click here: townhall.com/columnists/michae…
8. If you don't support the LGBT, you're homophobic!

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.- Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride."
Furthermore, if someone was in a lifestyle that was harmful wouldn't you try to convince them out of it?  We do this with alcoholics, why not homosexuals?  Especially since homosexual behavior brings damage that makes alcoholic damage look miniscule.  Frankly, I could argue I love and care for them more than those who try to push for this behavior.

9. Legalizing gay marriage won't affect anyone.

I think the redefinition of mankind's oldest and most important institution would affect everyone.  Also, some LGBT advocates agree it is to affect everyone as to make people stop viewing homosexuality negatively.  Now I know some of you are saying, "Not THAT kind of effect."  Sinful acts never just affect one or two people, it often affects whole communities and even countries. Achan's sin in Joshua 7, and David's sin in 2 Samuel 24 are a couple good examples.  As for some modern examples, Spain and Argentina have greatly deteriorated the family structure ever since same-sex marriage was allowed.  In the Netherlands, there is a decline in marriage rates even though same-sex marriage is allowed. To help explain my point (on this topic and others), I recommend the book "Homosexuality ad the Truth of Politics."  Now before you shoot this down as biased, there are LGBT advocates that agree with this book.  In fact, the leader of H.O.P.E. (Homosexuals Oppose Pride Extremism) wishes that this book was required reading in schools!

Also, this journal explains the problems of same-sex parenting.


Any thoughts?  Do you agree?  If not, why?  Did I miss any?  Leave your thoughts in the comments and please act like an adult.
Add a Comment:
 
:icongiantenemycrab99:
giantenemycrab99 Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014
"No they aren't.  They have the same rights everyone else does.  Including marriage.  To elaborate, a homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not someone of the same sex.  And a heterosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex.  We have equal rights.  The LGBT goal would make more sense if they asked for a new right since the equality they ask for already exist."

And people in countries controlled by ISIS all have equal rights - they all have the right to be Sunni Muslims and they all don't have the right to believe in any other religion.

In North Korea, everyone has the same rights - the right to worship Kim Jong Un and never question the government.

And a few decades ago, everyone in the US had the same rights - the right to marry someone of their own race. 
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
The problem here is that we have a different idea on what rights are.  Your rights aren't granted by government, they are from Natural Law (God, nature, take your pick).  If a government limits rights granted by Natural Law, it's wrong.  But there comes a point when "rights" are wrong.  If you have to redefine a word to get it to mean something you want it to, you're wrong.  The removal of bans preventing interracial marriage didn't require redefining marriage.  So to compare homosexuality to skin color or religion is to compare apples and oranges.

I just wanna say, thanks for being mature in your comment.  Too many people these days don't know how to disagree like grown-ups.
Reply
:icongiantenemycrab99:
giantenemycrab99 Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014
"Redefining marriage"? You mean like when it used to mean a father giving away his daughter as property to another man secure a family/political alliance? No one ever married for love until just a few hundred years ago. Marriage has had countless different definitions and purposes in different cultures throughout history. I suggest you do some research, such as this:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01…
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I meant as "one man and one woman" and going by the Biblical model (which required the relationship to be one of love.)
Reply
:icongiantenemycrab99:
giantenemycrab99 Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014
So it hasn't changed definition... except all of those times it has, but you can just ignore those if you like. And if you want to talk about the Bible (I don't even see how that's relevant anyway, as the Bible is not a legally binding governmental document of the United States, and plenty of people in the USA aren't Christian), but if you DO want to talk about what's in the Bible, you also have to take into account the many polygamous marriages there (Genesis 4:19, Genesis 31:17, Deuteronomy 21:15, Judges 8:30, 1 Samuel 1:2, 1 Kings 11:3, 2 Chronicles 11:21, 2 Chronicles 13:21, 2 Chronicles 24:3, for some examples), the fact that having concubines was common and acceptable (Exodus 21:10 for example gives a rule about Concubines), Then there's the whole Levirate marriage scenario...
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
The definition has not changed no matter how many people try.  Actually, they seem to reenforce it.

While you can't force Christianity itself on a populace per say, you can put certain laws inspired by Christianity into effect without forcing the population to accept said religion (see point 1).

Now tell me, did these happen with God's approval, or did it simple say that it happened (as to catalog the event)?  Also, some of these laws were put simply because it was dealing with the reality that it was happening and find a way to cope.  (e.g. you can't just divorce your other wives or you'd make more problems.)

And what about "the whole Levirate marriage scenario"?
Reply
:icongiantenemycrab99:
giantenemycrab99 Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2014
Why don't you look up the verses I cited for yourself and see? God never punishes or chastises them for it. In fact in many of the cases (i.e. Jacob, King Solomon, Gideon, Jehoiada) they were considered holy men blessed by God. 

And yes, the definition has changed, many many times throughout history and different cultures. I've demonstrated that to you already in the article I've shown you. Your "point 1" directly admits that different religions and beliefs have different definitions of marriage. So in order to implement a national law restricting marriage, that law has to have a secular purpose. There is no secular purpose is denying the rights of same-sex couples to marry. In fact, you suggested that the government should just stop officially recognizing marriage altogether and let individuals and non-governmental groups oversee it (this would also mean not granting privileges like tax exemptions for married couples). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_a… Removing all of these from the legal system would be a major chore, but it might actually be a good idea. Of course that would also mean that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry just as well - if the government no longer controls marriage then who's going to stop them?

Also "dealing with the reality that it was happening and finding a way to cope" seems like a flimsy excuse to me. God can do anything, if he didn't want these polygamous marriages and concubines to exist, then they wouldn't exist. There would be a law against it, and anyone who broke that law would be punished. I mean, look all over the OT for examples of this kind of thing. It seems that "no polygamy" would be a lot easier to enforce than "no working on the Sabbath", but God and the Hebrews had no problem enforcing that one (Numbers 15: 32-36). In fact, the OT has tons of rules forbidding things, most of which are punishable by death (fortune telling - Deuteronomy 18:10, shaving the hair on the sides of your head or shave your beard with a razor - Leviticus 19:27, men wearing women's clothing or vice-versa - Deuteronomy 22:5, tatoos - Leviticus 19:28, cut yourself or shave your head in mourning - Deuteronomy 14:1, adultery - Deuteronomy 13:18, Putting oil or frankincense on the meal offering - Numbers 5:15, sexual relations with your mother, mother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, daughter, granddaughter, a woman and her daughter, a woman and her granddaughter, your aunt, aunt-in-law, daughter-in-law - Leviticius 18:7 - 18:18, bestiality - Leviticus 18:23, sexual relations with a woman on her period - Leviticus 18:19, Marrying non-Israelites - Deuteronomy 7:3, sacrificing castrated male animals - Leviticus 22:24, eating non-Kosher animals - Leviticus 11:4, eating the meat of a wounded animal - Exodus 22:30, eating blood - Leviticus 3:17 - this is actually why Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions, as they consider it a form of "eating", eating meat cooked with milk - Exodus 23:19, eating fruit from a tree that's less than 3 years old - Leviticus 19:23) I could go on, that's just the beginning, but my point is that the OT had tons of rules for so many things that were expected to be strictly followed. Nowhere is there a rule against polygamy, though (except in situations where it would break one of the other rules). So yes, the Biblical definition of marriage includes polygamy.

BTW, speaking of divorce, there were provisions in the OT for a man to divorce a woman (but not vice-versa). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(div… Here is a link with some information on this.

As for the Levirate marriage, it's an arrangement found in the Bible where the brother of a dead man is obligated to marry his brother's widow. In other words, neither the husband or the wife have any say in this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum In fact, there was even an incident in the Bible where God killed a man for refusing to go through with such a marriage (Genesis 38:7 - 10). This is also part of the Biblical definition of marriage.

Of course the Bible is actually completely irrelevant to the legal issues here, I'm just discussing it so much because I find it interesting and like to study it. The real point is that same-sex marriage harms no one (I should know - it has been legal in my state for nearly 6 years and nothing bad has happened), so unless you have a secular purpose to forbid it (one that would hold up in court), then you can't pass a law against it. More and more state courts are overturning SSM bans because there is no secular purpose that can justify such a ban. After all, it doesn't affect you or me. If you don't like same-sex marriage, just do what I do: Don't have one.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I'll freely admit that my knowledge of Scripture isn't as good as I want it to be, but I will say this.  God is rather merciful when we screw up.  But this topic is slightly off the point.

Ah ha, here's the kicker; I always knew my plan would legalize same-sex marriage by proxy.  But with everyone going by their definitions, it wouldn't force an acceptance.  Although, I'd like to see homosexuality re-recognized as a mental disorder and have the option (keyword there) of therapy open.

A friend of mine (friend on this site at least) answers your third paragraph nicely here: hisarcher19.deviantart.com/jou…

Well, there are exceptions to certain rules.  Divorce is fine in cases of infidelity.  To compare, killing is justified in very specific cases (self-defense, defense of others, war, executing criminals, etc.)

The Levirate marriage was to ensure that the widow wasn't going to be left to fend for themselves and most likely go into poverty (or worse).  Also, if you look at the guy God killed, you'd find God had a legitimate reason for killing him.  He was basically say, "Since legally they'd be my brother's kids, I'm gonna make sure my new wife never has kids, even though she wants them.  Oh, but of course I'm gonna take advantage of her and still have sex and stuff, I just don't want to have that pesky responsibility."  If you were in God's position, wouldn't you deal with this prideful, selfish, hedonistic monster?

Actually, history has shown that the Bible is the perfect basis for government.  Even America's founders agreed (even the Deists!)  I recommend this book for you: www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Chr…

Here are just a few excerpts from it:

www.truefreethinker.com/articl…

www.truefreethinker.com/articl…

www.truefreethinker.com/articl…

Also, I find pandering to a psychosis very harmful.  Especially when said psychosis can lead to health problems that make alcoholism look safe by comparison.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014
1) You do realize that by getting government out of marriage that it would allow for churches that are okay with gay marriage to let gays get married, i.e. the very thing you seem to be against, right? Also, the first amendment is a two way street. We keep the government out of your religion, and you keep your religion out of government. Seems pretty damn fair. And to support one religion's view of marriage over others, as some religions do permit marriage as Hawaii had to be reminded in their court case over their gay marriage laws. The local Buddhists were fine with preforming gay marriages, which they had to remind people when the anti-gay Mormons claimed to be fighting on behalf of all religions.

2) If there were no anti-gay marriage laws, you'd be right. But since there are anti-gay marriage laws, the effort to prevent gay marriage ironically has made it possible to fight against it on the basis of discrimination. In the 60's when anti-gay marriage laws started, a gay couple had taken advantage of the vague marriage laws to try and get married. But instead of rewriting the law for marriage, they added an anti-gay marriage law, thus in a lovely little twist it turns out to be unconstitutional to do that under the due process and equal protection clauses.

So it turns out that anti-gay marriage advocates did more harm to their cause then good, as the 14th amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." By having their states make those anti-gay laws, they unconstitutionally abridged citizens rights without due process.

3) Actually marriage is a right as determined by the supreme court in their Loving V. Virginia decision. Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that: “ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival........ To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

If you exchange race for gender or orientation and you have the exact same argument for gay-marriage. Mildred Loving, the black woman who was the center of the case has been on record saying: "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

4) Just because less then half the states allow gay marriage doesn't mean that half the population can't be in support of it, and in fact many polls throughout the country have showed an upward trend in all areas, and most areas are now surpassing 50%.

5) Except that alcoholics, drug-addicts and sociopaths tend to hurt themselves and sadly other people fairly often. Allowing yourself to be gay in and of itself doesn't hurt anyone per se. The pain is usually caused by others, trying to hurt the gay person, or the gay person making poor life choices, choices not exclusive to being gay I might add nor universal among gays.

6) You do realize that if a same-sex couple responsible and faithful, they won't contract STDs either right? It's not as if you rub two sticks together and BOOM, STDs spontaneously form.

7) You're right. Gay is not the new black. If anything Black is the new gay and as a member of the LGBT I find it insulting when people think that blacks had it worst then we do. Blacks got discriminated against for a few hundred years. Gays have been discriminated since before recorded history, facing every sort of punishment and torture in the book. Oh, and on top of that, not only were they punished and tortured, it was often down at the hands of their own friends and family when they were discovered. Never seen a black person torture the life out of their kid for being black. For being gay on the other hand...sadly happens today even in the more civilized parts of the world like the US.

8) Homophobic means an aversion to homosexuals. Are you saying that you don't have an aversion to homosexuals?

9) First of all, I would've thought the "don't murder each other" thing would be the oldest and most important institute. Second of all, you have been suckered by some propaganda I'm afraid. Marriage isn't just in decline in those countries that have adopted gay marriage, but in decline universally in the first and even many second world countries, regardless of gay marriage. The two main theories behind this are the declining influence of the church and financial instability. The former is that over the past 20 years (coincidentally around the same time the internet started becoming commercially available along with tons of free information)the church has slowly but surely been loosing power and thus many are wondering why they need to restrict themselves to religious rules. The latter reason is that many people feel like they shouldn't get married and start a family until they're financially stable. With the last global recession many younger folks are being more cautious about what they deem to be "financially stable" thus many of them are holding off on marriage (and on an unrelated note, holding off on investing in the stock market as well).
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
First, allow me to thank you for being respectful in your disagreeing.  Most people today don't know how to behave anymore.

1. Yes I'm aware that it would legalize it through proxy.  But this way, no one can force someone to participate in a same-sex wedding.

2. The problem with this line of thinking is that people with minority status have it because it is immutable.  No one is, for example, an ex-black.  But there are ex-homosexuals.

3. Just because some government official said this, it doesn't make it true.  Especially since not everyone agrees. barbwire.com/2014/06/28/finall…

4. I did a journal on this. hisarcher19.deviantart.com/jou…

5 & 6. I recommend the book "Homosexuality and the Truth of Politics" to answer that.

7. I partly covered this in the 2nd point.  As for more, I don't approve of killing people over this.  Also, where in the US are they being killed with societal approval?

8.  I don't have an aversion to them.  Heck, I'm friends with some.  They even know my stance on the issue.  But we still get along.

9.  Actually "don't murder each other" is the 2nd :)  OK, jokes and history speculation aside.  Second, if you look at the world as a whole, Christianity is spreading.  Even some atheists predict a resurgence in the faith.  On the marriage issue, it is not just a matter of less marriages, but more failed ones.  You'll find that the divorce rate of homosexuals is rather high.
Reply
Add a Comment: