Where's the Logic???
BYF wrote this
Mike, to draw an analogy, think about what defines a religion. Centuries ago Chrisianity was a cult. A hundred and fifty years ago Mormonism was a cult. Now it's a recognized religion. What is the line between religion and cult? Are Jehovah's witnesses a religion? Some people still say no. The point is, it evolves over time. The same is true with marriage. Marriage existed even before the Bible, and exists in religions that don't use the Bible, so to base the definition of marriage on what is in the Bible is not really fair, either. That definition has changed over time, too. Women used to be the property of their husbands. Miscegenation used to be illegal. It's even legal in some areas now to marry one's first cousin. So to argue that gay marriage would change a static institution is not accurate, either -- marriage has continually been evolving. I'm not condoning the marriage of brothers and sisters, and I also take offense when people compare my relationships to incest or bestiality. My overall point is that the institution of marriage has and will continue to change, and society knows when it's ready to draw a new line. We're in the process of drawing a new line, and -- like it or not -- same-sex marriage WILL become legal in this country at some point.Okay, fine....you're offended at a comparison I wasn't making. I don't get it. So far, at least those of you I have dealt with the most, seem to be very intelligent. You have well-though-out arguments...except when it comes to things like this last paragraph. How you don't see the flaw, being intelligent as you are, I don't understand. Let me play Devil's Advocate....I love my sister and I think we should be married. There are laws that prohibit this, but I think they are unfair. You just stated that incest and bestiality are offensive....please explain to me why these are offensive? BYF? Ryan?
posted by Mike at 2/03/2005 03:48:00 PM
8 Comments:
I've didn't say the things you quoted, so I'll defer.
But if there were a rash of siblings marrying or people wanting to marry their pets (a rash, not a few wanting to make a legal point) then I would answer with logic citing the mental states of these people, mental states which have been shown by psychiatric experts in our community to be dangerous and harmful. Not so with homosexuality.
In any event, your sister would have more legal rights than your gay partner would...which are really the only things I want out of a government-sanctioned marriage.
Frankly, if I got the same bundle of rights as you when "marrying" my same-sex partner, we wouldn't have to call it marriage. We could call any partnership, straight or gay, as "civil unions" or "Carol Channing naked on a bearskin rug" for all I care.
Are you opposed to civil unions, Mike?
Oh, so NOW numbers matter? When we were discussing the "right and wrong" issue as it pertained to the number of Christians killed/persecuted versus the number of homosexuals killed/persecuted the numbers didn't matter at all. Right was right and wrong was wrong. Your argument is filled with flaws. You say that incest is offensive but homosexuality is not. You also say that marriage has "evolved" to include homosexual marriage. Who is to say then, in your line of thinking, that marriage could not evolve to where Brother and Sister or even Brother and Brother could marry? They are consenting adults...right? Simply because (according to Ryan) mental health professionals warn against it and state that there are mental problems inherent in such a person is not enough. The same was and still is said about homosexuality by most mental health professionals and yet here we are. What is to stop it from "evolving" even more? Further, if evolution is true, who knows if someday that our pets could consent to a relationship? Isn't it possible through the ridiculous theory of Evolution that this could happen? Do you not see the similarities in argument, if not in actual practice? You may be offended, but the comparison is not between lifestyles but between arguments and there is no difference.
By the way, a "cult" is a system of belief that usually centers around a living leader whose practices and teachings are contrary or outside of recognized Christian Orthodoxy.
Mike, I am disappointed in how narrow minded you seem to be. Religion is a personal matter and one's personal choice/religious view is not in anyway superior to another's view. I am confused as to how you can even compare homosexuality to bestiality or the marriage of siblings?! And, your research on homosexuals is extremely poor and misguiding. Almost all current and credible research today has found there to be no difference in the outcomes of children raised by a homosexual couple than those of a heterosexual couple. If anything, children raised by homosexual couples tend to be more open-minded, and more mentally, and emotionally well-rounded than their counterparts. They are however, not any more likely to turn out to be homosexual than children raised by a heterosexual couple. And, I have known two homosexual males in my lifetime and neither have come from broken homes or abusive homes. You can come from a religious, loving home and still turn out to be homosexual. The problem is that homosexuals who come from religious and loving homes are those who feel the most shame about their sexuality, especially if the parents are not supportive.
You say your religious faith is something as evident as your human-ness, but you see, there are so many different religions and they are all different in their views about how one should conduct themselves in this life, how do you see one as more significant than another? Your religion is no more right or superior than anyone elses.
You should refrain from posting anything having to do with homosexuality unless you research it thoroughly and have your facts straight.
Firstly, "anonymous" this has been an ongoing debate over several days, and you are jumping in and making accusations which have no basis here. I've already waded through all the bogus finger pointing and posturing (from both sides) over the past week and now we have started to have an intelligent dialogue. My "research" as you put it, speaks for itself....if you do a little "research" yourself and look back through my posts I have given several credible, independent links as to what Doctors and Mental Health Professionals have to say about homosexuality and children being raised/reared in this environment. I'll stop here, because I don't fancy moving backward three steps in this debate.....Perhaps if you read the other posts and threads you'll get caught up.
Though these that have posted on my site (likewise I have posted on their site) disagree with me and I with them, we have (I think) at least a respect for each other's viewpoint as not coming from hatred, but a difference of opinion and philosophy, which I would deem as progress in a debate that is all to often fueled by hatred and anger from both sides of the issue. Such is not the case here.
And, "anonymous," could I not just as easily call you "narrow-minded" for disagreeing with me? Though we've covered this already in previous posts, one is not "narrow-minded" and "bigoted" simply because one disagrees with another. I believe if you'll take the time to wade through the information in its entirety you will certainly see 2 differing viewpoints, but will also see a lot of logic and somewhat sound reasoning from both sides and a mutual respect for each other. At least, I can say this honestly for myself....
Mike, this all comes down to a difference in opinion of what a credo and a belief system should really be. You'd like yours to be cut-and-dry, black and white, where you know for certain what is right and what is wrong.
Others among us, who like to call ourselves the reality-based community, know that it's impossible to make such clear cut distinctions to cover all cases. We find it difficult to argue with fundamentalists like yourself who seem to have no capacity for rational discourse.
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, which represents the findings of the vast majority of mental health professionals, removed homosexuality from its list of treatable conditions. Over 30 years ago they recognized that there is nothing fundamentally wrong in being homosexual, and no need for a "cure", and in fact no "cure" exists. The research you cite is neither credible nor professional and has been cherry picked by partisan organizations from a vast universe of studies in order to fit your argument. Admit it.
Your examples of pets and incest are meaningless; you're more interested in winning an argument than justifying why same-sex marriages shouldn't happen today. If there comes a time when pets want to marry their owners or if a rash of brothers want to marry sisters, we'll deal with it.
Same-sex couples exist, they live happy and normal lives, offer much to society, and raise incredibly well-adjusted children. It's time we stop making millions of Americans live in shame.
Lastly, "anonymous," I would say that though obviously there have been "religious" (by the way I hate that word) references and inferences in a few of my posts, I have actually chosen to argue predominantly from a logic standpoint as opposed to an overtly "religious" one (which of course you will see if you read back through the threads). So, your point on the "religion" issue is simply moot.
For a response to Ryan's last comment in this topic, click here
Post a Comment
<< Home