Gay Marriage In America
The following is a guest posting from Parklife:
================================================
I do not really know where to start. I have even typed out several responses
to your recent posts. The more conversation we have, the more seems to be
misunderstood. I feel that my words are taken, misconstrued, misrepresented and
altered into your personal response. It seems that a previous poster had this
similar problem. I do not really know what else to do but start over. The little
I take have taken away, thus far, seems to be that Christian people wish to
impose their values on society much like anybody else would. I thought the
answer would be more complicated than that.
It disappoints me that Gay Americans can not marry in most states. What is the
argument as to why some wish to prevent this from happening?
================================================
I do not really know where to start. I have even typed out several responses
to your recent posts. The more conversation we have, the more seems to be
misunderstood. I feel that my words are taken, misconstrued, misrepresented and
altered into your personal response. It seems that a previous poster had this
similar problem. I do not really know what else to do but start over. The little
I take have taken away, thus far, seems to be that Christian people wish to
impose their values on society much like anybody else would. I thought the
answer would be more complicated than that.
It disappoints me that Gay Americans can not marry in most states. What is the
argument as to why some wish to prevent this from happening?
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
12 Comments:
Why am I against homosexual marriage? Two reasons. Because you can not base marriage on a behavior that is wrong - homosexuality. Because by definition, marriage is one man and one woman for life.
For me, as a Christian, it's not a hard decision. The creator or the universe (which includes creating us), says that homosexuality is wrong and marriage is between one man and one woman for life.
If you don't want to accept God's word, look at history. Christianity is not a blind faith. There is nothing that God has told us is wrong, that has turned out to be good for us. God doesn't tell us something is wrong because He wants us to be unhappy, or because He is mean, or because He is arbitrary or sadistic. God tells us something is wrong because He loves us; He wants to protect us; and He very much wants us to be happy.
If you want to leave God out of it, just look at the medical facts, homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle.
There is an excellent article about this at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
Here is a summary:
HIV/AIDS - well known problem. Enough said.
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) - this includes 70 types of viruses, 20 of which are incurable. 65% of homosexuals have an HPV. And HPV leads to more serious problems such as cancer. For example, most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV. And HPV is believed to cause cervical cancer in women.
Hepatitis A - a liver disease that is potentially fatal and which causes cancer. Hepatitis B. Hepatitis C. Those who engage in unsafe sexual practices, as are common among homosexuals, have an increased risk for contracting hepatitis.
Gonorrhea, including genital and throat Gonorrhea - In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.
Syphilis - homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals
Gay Bowel Syndrome (includes proctitis, proctocolitis, enteritis and others)
Anal Cancer: Homosexuals have a 35 times greater risk for this type of cancer.
Compulsive Behavior - abusing alcohol, tobacco and drugs. For women, compulsive eating disorders and codenpendency.
Increased risk of physical violence - 90 percent of the lesbians have been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the prior year, 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse. Domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.
High Incidence of Mental Health Problems
Greater Risk for Suicide
Reduced Life Span
The bottom line is that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle. If you love an alcoholic, you do not become an enabler for that alocoholic. If you love homosexuals. you do not become an enabler for homosexuals. And that is just what homosexual "marriage" does. It enables a self-destructive behavior.
I think I might be the 'previous poster' Parklife speaks of.
MTA/Davis is not concerned with facts, evidence or reason. His dialect consists of words pointing at these things, but does not practise them in any substantial form. Prevalent methods of argument seem to be:
- misquoting and complete misattribution of sentiment
- labelling: i'm a fascist gay activist :)
- inconsistency: reversing position from one post to the next
- ignoring questions, posing alternative dilemmas to serve as platforms for argument
- straw-man arguments by induction outside of context
I was taken in by the let's-discuss-it bait, and found that discussion was not really on offer. Expecting an exchange of ideas, I was unpleasantly surprised to find only canned dogma and rhetoric on offer, and only in as much as it conforms to MTA/Davis' personal view.
When he talked about using his son as a pawn in the radical christian game he plays, I lost the stomach for continued argument, satisfying my morbid curiosity with the occasional lurk.
However, it's a new year and that is a good a reason as any to kick things off again. I'll start proceedings with a critique of the response that MTA/Davis posted, listing the reasons why homosexuality is ill-advised.
I note that sexually transmitted diseases form the basis of most of the argument. Many heterosexuals carry and transmit STD's; perhaps heterosexuality should also be discouraged as a lifestyle choice, perhaps they can be 'cured'?
I am also struck by the continued reference to the anus (anal, rectum, bowel etc). Eric Berne talks of the fascination with orifices as a stage of childhood. Is MTA/Davis seriously positing an argument against a lifestyle on the basis of potential damage it could cause to your bot-bot - or is there something else going on here?
I will restrain myself to one more observation. All of the problems mentioned in the argument are not unique to homosexuality. In fact they are not guaranteed by, or meaningfully correlated with homosexuality. I still suspect that they are simply the veneer of justification that MTA/Davis requires to discriminate against gays, and hence feel better about himself.
Hi, welcome back anonymous. It's good to have you back.
I'm all set and ready to have a discussion. You said, "I'll start proceedings with a critique of the response that MTA/Davis posted, listing the reasons why homosexuality is ill-advised."
Please go ahead. Let's have a fact's based disussion. I assume your facts based critique is coming in your next post.
The scientific medical facts show that homosexuals suffer much greater instances than heterosexuals of all of the health problems I've listed. Are these facts in dispute?
What is a "fact's based discussion"? Your shotgun approach to punctuation makes my teeth hurt.
Secondly, "scientific medical facts" is a needless tautology. However, I think I know what you are talking about.
Let me say this: the concept of a fact does not dovetail neatly with learning/research in the sciences. There are really just hypotheses, which are at best "the most plausible explanation of the data", and at worst "current thinking until proven otherwise".
On the other hand, religious debate is rife with "facts" - generally concepts that are plausible but not substantiated, trotted out to justify the point of view under discussion.
Of course some religious facts are not based on any evidence at all - hence the concept of faith, a social mechanism used to include those who believe what you believe, and ostracise others. It serves as a convenient tool for dealing with annoying questions. e.g. How was Jesus immaculately conceived?
People who question these things are branded unbelievers. If they do not capitulate and profess belief they are excluded from the faith-based community. Witness the practice of imparting doctrine to children not capable of supporting themselves. The pressure brought to bear is considerable. The thinking child is discouraged from asking questions, and the idea of bigotry finds its seed here, starting with the them-vs.-us stance taken against other beliefs.
I am not going to argue "facts" with you, since we clearly understand them to be different things. I'm just going to point out that without the usual particulars which support such debate, your scientifical approach to debatulation is patently absurd.
You think gays are bad. You'd like to see their rights, choices, and lifestyle restricted. Your attempted justification for this is based on your concern for their health. Even if you're trained in the medical profession, which I doubt, discrimination is still discrimination.
Do you see that your approach is not reasonable?
Very interesting.
When I post comments quoting statistics from an oirganization that is committed solely to preventing disease and health problems, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) (I reference my source), you say that:
"the concept of a fact does not dovetail neatly with
learning/research in the sciences. There are really just hypotheses, which are at best "the most plausible explanation of the data", and at worst "current thinking until proven otherwise"
Is it true then you are saying that science can not produce facts? Interesting. In one way I'm glad to hear that because it totally undermines the hypothesus of the big bang and evolution. Although as a Christian I do know that learning/research (science) can and does produce facts.
The problem with arguing facts when it comes to the health and safety issues related to homosexuality, is that the facts have long proved that homosexuality is an unhealthy, unsafe behavior. The arguement has been settled long ago.
It seems to me you are the one going around in circles, with your only arguement in favor of homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage being bluster and insults. It comes down to the same self-centered attitude I've always heard: I want what I want and I don't care about the consequences.
I want you to realise that you are a bigot.
If that's the same old thing you've always heard perhaps it's time for you to start paying attention?
Now you want to engage in "scientific medical facts". Is this kind of like those dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Or your Grand Canyon argument? But, as you know, "We all have our Own Truth." Please forgive me if I have little faith in the accuracy of your statistics. I did make a short attempt to find something on the CDC website. But, surprisingly, there was nothing there. From what I understand, you think homosexuals should not marry because it is bad for their health. You are the humanitarian, MTA. This coming from somebody that supports an organization that is notorious for promoting poor sexual choices for people. (Remember the whole anti-masturbate thing?) Here is some news for you: Homosexuals will be gay if they are married or not.
Then to even suggest that AIDS is a homosexual problem is simply dumb. AIDS is a GLOBAL problem. Africa and Asia seem to be dealing poorly with the AIDS crisis. Just this past week the number of AIDS infected people in Russia was dramatically increased (prev. 300,000 estimate raised to 1million). Kids continue to be raped in Africa to spread this and other terrible problems. Please do not be so ignorant as to suggest that only gay people need to be the only ones who worry about AIDS.
You go onto express concern over other STDs and cancers relating to the homosexual lifestyle. From my limited knowledge of the law, I believe that, even, promiscuous people may be married. An individual could engage in one unsafe sexual experience, and still be married. The chance of them having all the problems you mentioned would exist. Religious groups would do better attacking the Jennifer Lopez's of the world. A serial marry-er damages the value of marriage far more than any gay couple.
Another interesting idea came to mind this weekend. Are you, MTA, supporting STDs and domestic violence? Your statistics seem to suggest that some level of disease and beatings are acceptable. After all, heterosexual couples do generate statistics greater than zero.
And, finally, I love the comments by Anonymous.
Parklife, thank you for taking some time to look up the original sources concerning the negative effects of homosexual behavior on health. In my post I said I was summarizing a document that is available at:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
If you go to that document, they have links to all of the sources of information, including the CDC links as well as others.
By the way, my opposition to homosexual marriage, and homosexual behavior, is based on the word of God. He said it is wrong, and He knows what He is talking about. I'm just presenting the health information to demonstrate that the more we learn from science, the more we find that God is right. And also because I recognize that some people reject the word of God and instead worship science (I'm not saying you do).
Anonymous's comment about not being able to trust science is very true. If you pick up a science textbook that is more than ten years old, there are errors in it. That's why I trust the Bible. It has never been found to be wrong--which makes sense because the person who made the universe should know all about it.
But, I'm happy to discuss science because when it gets to the truth it reflects God's word.
You said that even heterosexual people have STDs. You seem to be saying that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relations are the same. But, that's not the case. I've added a new posting that addresses this question by looking at actual behavior.
Parklife, I forgot one thing. Since you had mentioned that the question of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark was not the real question you wanted answered, I have tried to address your real questions and concerns. I do plan to add information to our web site about this, but until then a good introductory web page about dinosaurs on Noah's Ark is at: Dinosaurs on the Ark.
Took a look at the link you posted.. I'll quote if I may:
"Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like ‘kind’, Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine ‘kind’, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed."You can see here that the principle of evolution has been employed to reduce to an acceptable level the numbers of animals which were carried on the ark.
Are you struck by Woodmorappe's use of arguments from the other side of the dichotomous creationist/evolution debate to justify himself? On the other hand if you can't see the contradictions so evident in your own publicised philosophy, then it's a bit of a stretch to hope you'd be capable of seeing it in others.
The more I see of the type of thing you read, the less surprised I am by the drivel you trot out as truth.
I wanted to point out that your ultimate source of truth which you trust because it has never been found to be wrong, is wrong all over the place - but you and I have fundamentally different opinions on what constitutes truth. Yours seems to be that whatever you say is true, without substantiation. So, taking a cue from that, I'd like to say that you are an idiot. I'm not going to justify it, but I believe it to be true.
The reason I take issue with your idiocy is simply because you are trying to inflict it on others. If you spent a bit more time thinking instead of repeating an old and defunct message, you'd be a lot less of an irritation. Your ideas are insulting, and your reasoning laughable.
I ride a motorbike, I know it's dangerous. It's my choice.
People smoke cigarettes, it's unhealthy, it's their choice.
Others drink alcohol, again, all sorts of associated problems. They get to choose.
People drive in cars. More deaths from bad driving last year than from anal cancer. Yet they choose to do it anyway.
You should drop the pretence. It's as clear as the nose on your face that you hate homosexuals. Pretending you come from a place of concern just makes you look ridiculous.
Why not practice some of the legendary christian care and humanity which you lay claim to, instead of spreading bigotry.
"I ride a motorbike, I know it's dangerous. It's my choice."
And you are required by law to wear a helmet, obey speed limits, have insurance, not ride it on the sidewalk, stop for red lights, and be of a minimum age, etc. You can't do whatever you want on your motorbike.
"People smoke cigarettes, it's unhealthy, it's their choice."
And they can not smoke them in most workplaces. Where I live they can't smoke them in stores, restaurants, or public places. Someone under 18 can't buy them. You can't do whatever you want with cigarettes.
"Others drink alcohol, again, all sorts of associated problems. They get to choose."
You can't drink and drive. You can't give alcohol to a minor. You can't drink at work (unless you work in a brewery) or school -- or be drunk at work or school.
Alcohol s an excellent example... it is very much like homosexuality.
Both have negative health and life effects. If you want to do it in your own home (or other appropriate location, that's fine). But what do you think about someone who drives an alcoholic to a bar and buys them the first three drinks, and leaves them with the keys to a car so they can get home? You are enabling something that is bad. That's not right. And that is what homosexual marriage is--an enabling of something that is bad. Allowing homosexual marriage is just like driving an alcoholic to the bar, buying him drinks, and leaving him there with the keys to the car--and telling him this is all okay, just so he feels better as he dies.
"People drive in cars. More deaths from bad driving last year than from anal cancer. Yet they choose to do it anyway."
As you know there are many restrictions on driving a car that reduce the number of people who are injured and killed. There are speed limits, you can only go a certain way on a one-way street, stop for red lights, a whole book full of limits on what you can do as a driver--and those laws are there to protect you and others. You can not go out and do anything you want in a car, just because YOU want to.
Wanting to do something does not give ayone the right to do it.
In every example you brought up there are restrictions on what we can do that are placed into the law for the benefit of society. Having homosexual marriage is a negative influence on our society, and that's why it is something that is not allowed--just like speeding, riding your bike without a helmet, and drinking and driving are not allowed.
"Allowing homosexual marriage is just like driving an alcoholic to the bar, buying him drinks, and leaving him there with the keys to the car--and telling him this is all okay, just so he feels better as he dies.MTA/Davis - you are a nut. And a complete and utter arsehole. I almost feel sorry for you.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home