Homosexual marriage advocates in Washington State are pushing a law to require heterosexual married couples to have children, but their arguments completely miss the point.
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."
Gadow is right, but I don't grant his assumption that homosexual couples should be barred from marriage because they can't have kids. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because that recognition would legitimize a type of relationship that is inherently harmful to society and reviled by God.
Romans 1:26-27Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The motivation for preventing homosexual marriage is therefore not really refutable by homosexual advocates, so it's unlikely that they will win over their opponents. This fact that rational (to them) argument has no hope of prevailing must be quite frustrating, but resorting to legislative stunts such as the one in this article won't really help the situation.
On the contrary, monogamous homosexual relationships are quite beneficial to society; reducing disease, drug addiction, etc.
"Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because that recognition would legitimize a type of relationship that is inherently harmful to society..."
How is it harmful to society? As far as I can tell, you have never come close to justifying this belief. What bad things would happen to society if committed homosexual relationships could be recognized in the same ways as committed heterosexual relationships?
"... and reviled by God. The motivation for preventing homosexual marriage is therefore not really refutable by homosexual advocates"
Indeed. When you say something is bad "because my ancient book of choice says so", I'm glad you see that this is not refutable by reasonable people.
BM: "Reasonable" is all in the context, as you obviously understand.
MW said: "resorting to legislative stunts such as the one in this article won't really help the situation."
Neither will foisting upon everyone the good 'ol "God disapproves" argument.
I don't think people like Mark and Bernardo realize how arrogant they appear in the comments section.
Mark: But the point is that the majority gets to vote and doesn't have to convince anyone else of anything. We can have any reason we want, including "because the Bible says so". It's the minority that has to make an argument for why things should be different.
"On the contrary, monogamous homosexual relationships are quite beneficial to society; reducing disease, drug addiction, etc."
This is not contrary, Mark. The issue is legitimacy of marriage, not the relationship itself. If the entire issue centers on social or legal benefits, then why not call it a "union" that the secular state can endorse. Trying to legitimize this as a "marriage" smacks of pure spite to religions, more specifically Christians and Jews. If the ultimate goal on the pro gay marriage side is legitimacy from everyone as a true marriage, keep dreaming.
6K: That's not the issue. MW framed it as a "type of relationship".. and that's what I was addressing it as, not a whole rehash of the "marriage" or "union" issue.
MW: The majority/minority situation has nothing to do with this. I was pointing out how your approach to this issue isn't helping anymore than the activities you decried.
"I don't think people like Mark and Bernardo realize how arrogant they appear in the comments section."
Sorry. After hearing "homosexual marriage should stay illegal" over and over with such conviction, and never hearing any good reason why I should agree with this, I'm starting to get a little impatient about this issue.
"If the entire issue centers on social or legal benefits, then why not call it a "union" that the secular state can endorse."
I don't think anyone here is saying that churches should marry homosexual couples. Churches can marry (or refuse to marry) whomever they want. We're just talking about having the state recognize a committed homosexual relationship in the same way it recognizes a committed heterosexual relationship. Why not call it a "union"? Because the state does not (as far as I know) call [heterosexual] marriages "unions". If the secular/government term for "marriage" is "union", then, yes, ok, it is homosexual "unions" that should be allowed by law.
"...the majority gets to vote and doesn't have to convince anyone else of anything..."
Yeah, but since you believe this so strongly and write about it every now and then, I was kinda hoping you could try.
If the aim of your blog post is "For those of you who already think homosexual marriage would be bad, you see that this legislative initiative is stupid", then you might have succeeded. I guess I was hoping, though, that the aim of your post would be more along the lines of "This legislative initiatives illustrates some of the factors why homosexual marriage would be bad", which if it was, then it wasn't successful.
"... your approach to this issue isn't helping anymore than the activities you decried."
Yep. There you go.
Anyways, I guess I'll stop asking you to please explain this belief that homosexual marriage would be detrimental to society. Clearly it's hopeless. Instead, since you don't want to justify your belief, I'll just keep my unchallenged opinion that you're wrong on this issue. I hope you can see that you're not helping to promote your point of view, or to make it look legitimate in your opponents' eyes. I guess you're just writing to preach to the choir and to increase divisiveness. All right, carry on.
BM: I'm utterly mystified by your assertion that your opinion is unchallenged! Just because my challenge isn't in a form that compels your agreement doesn't mean that I've offered up no explanation, and it's bizarre for you to think so. Along with many other issues, the question of gay marriage is primarily one of religious conviction. Are there negative consequences to rampant homosexuality? Of course there! Just as there are negative consequences to rampant divorce and promiscuity among heterosexuals.
The difference is that it's very different for the government to prohibit, say, heterosexual divorce than homosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage and divorce have been societal institutions for all known history, whereas homosexual marriage was never even conceived of (heh) more than a few decades ago.
All this is so obvious that repeating it grows incredibly wearisome. The whole point of this post is that your cries for further argument are utterly pointless because you reject the axioms of my position. This might make it seem to you (probably disingenuously) that I'm not even trying to make an argument, but the reality is that you're simply trying to be clever by plugging your ears.
(By the way, this is why I tend not to respond to your atheism-vs-Christianity comments anymore. I don't believe that you're actually interested in finding the truth. You've decided there is no truth and that arguing about it is an amusing rhetorical game.)
Bernardo, you're kinda late to the party on this one. We beat it to death well over a year ago.
And of course no one here has convinced you of anything. You've gone into the argument determined not to be convinced. You've already declared that no one on our side has anything reasonable to say. It's all just a bunch of jibber-jabber from us religious-nut morons. Then you invite us to attempt to persuade you, and construe our lack of interest in convincing you as further justification for your belief. It's absolutely amazing that us morons aren't falling all over ourselves trying to persuade you!
I offer up the following argument with full knowledge that you support SSM with a fervency that few religious believers can hope to match. I bother to write it out only because it's pertinent to what Michael wrote, and I've written it so many times that I can pretty much do it from memory.
We should treat same-sex (SS) couples differently from opposite-sex (OS) couples because they're different. An SS couple cannot produce a child. An OS couple might be able to produce a child. That's an important difference, if you consider children to be important.
The logic behind this latest attack in Washington State is classic "best is the enemy of the good." We can't sort for the relevant trait perfectly, therefore we shouldn't even try.
On the same logic, we shouldn't prohibit blind people from getting drivers' licenses. Oh sure, you might think that it makes sense to withhold driving privileges from the blind, because you believe that states should only issue drivers' licenses to people who can drive safely. But there's your mistake! You've been confused by the evil anti-blind propaganda. States routinely issue licenses to narcoleptics, epileptics, and all sorts of other people who aren't safe behind the wheel. And the fact that the states don't spend an infinite amount of money weeding out every type of unsafe driver proves (somehow, on your logic) that there is no connection at all between driving ability and who should receive drivers' licenses. The whole system is obviously just an evil conspiracy against the blind!
Or could it be that information is expensive, and states operate with limited budgets? Could it be rational for the states to spend only enough money to weed out the blind, and then choose not to spend more money weeding out every other medical condition that impairs driving?
A blind person's ability to drive is just like a same-sex couple's ability to conceive: The test is really cheap and foolproof in identifying the lack of ability.
Same-sex couples are indeed different, but there is still value to society in recognizing same-sex monogamous relationships; choose whatever name for that recognition you wish.
"I don't believe that you're actually interested in finding the truth. You've decided there is no truth and that arguing about it is an amusing rhetorical game."
Actually, as far as the atheism/christianity debate, I agree with your assessment of my current approach.
"Just because my challenge isn't in a form that compels your agreement doesn't mean that I've offered up no explanation"
To me, discussing the "detrimental" consequences of legalizing gay marriage - i.e. outlining why and how it would be detrimental to society - would be the only thing I would accept as an "explanation" to your belief that gay marriage should stay illegal. (Yes, to me, policy should be determined by its effects on society, not just by what the Bible says). I'm not so much "closing my ears" to what you're saying. It's just that what you're saying doesn't outline how gay marriage would be detrimental to society. It says that Christians should think gay marriage is bad, but since you admit that Christianity itself is not logically justifyable, then you have to see why your "challenge" is not compelling to people who don't think the Bible was divinely inspired.
I'm not saying that same-sex couples are the same as opposite-sex couples. But old couples are not the same as young couples, rich couples are not the same as poor couples, immigrant couples are not the same as American couples, and even inter-racial couples are different from same-race couples, in the kinds of experiences they go through, in the kids they raise, in the values they promote, in the goals they have for their lives. But all of them can get married.
Should old people not be allowed to marry? They can't have kids, and their relationship will probably be very different from the relationship of a couple in their 20s.
Homosexuality is not some weird fetish that can be un-taught. It is a deep and fundamental part of the brains of homosexuals. It is a part of the human condition - one to be understood and accepted so that we can deal with it, rather than pretend it's not there.
I guess what I'm saying is a similar argument for the legalization of controlled substances (although that is not an initiative I enthusiastically support). Even beyond the biblical points, I bet that most of what you see as being "bad" about homosexuality comes from the fact it must be done illicitly.
(In this debate, I do believe there is truth, not just a game to be played. But to me, the "truth" must show (or at least theorize) why society (and especially the gay population) is better off now than it would be if same-sex marriage were allowed).
Let me put it this way:
I think that, if the state recognized committed homosexual relationships in the same way it recognizes committed heterosexual relationships, nothing "detrimental" would happen to society.
You have not argued against this proposition.
You have stated that you think I am mistaken, but you have not described the detrimental things you think would happen if gay marriage existed.
BB: I don't think the primary purpose of marriage is to bear children.
Bernardo: I don't believe that homosexuality is primarily in-born. Evidence continues to indicate that homosexuality is a form of mental illness often brought about by childhood sexual abuse, though I maintain that it doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is a choice. (Is there a biological component? In some cases almost certainly yes... just as there are biological components to kleptomania and other behavioral disorders.)
I've written so much about this topic that I'm not going to rehash it all for your amusement. I'm not even sure why I bothered writing this much since it's clear that you don't have any respect for the amount of time and effort I've put into answering your questions.
Bernardo, do you think that no-fault divorce hurt anybody? I think that the harm is obvious in its corrosive effect on millions of marriages. But that harm is also spread out, so that it's hard to dramatize. You could easily miss it if you didn't want to see it.
Like no-fault divorce, SSM would discourage husbands and wives from taking their marriages seriously. The SSM movement's attitude is irreverent, destructive of tradition, and dismissive or even hostile towards children. The philosophical message of SSM is that individual sexual pleasure is more important than the hard work that is necessary to perpetuate society. If our society embraces that message, then it embraces its own destruction.
Societies are not machines that run indefinitely on their own. A society is a belief, a state of mind that exists only so long as its members want it to exist, and so long as they are willing to do what is necessary to keep it alive.
Michael, we'll have to disagree about the primary purpose of marriage. I think that marriage is about more than procreation; it's about perpetuating society, which involves much more than just makin' babies. I don't see a big difference between that and your passage from Genesis.
Would any of you support something for same-sex monogamous couples with many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage but with a different name?
Something along those lines appears far more likely (regardless of your opinion) than same-sex "marriage".