Hispanic Pundit said my Kurtz debunking didn’t get at his core argument which is:
A. Many people believe homosexuality issues to be equal to race issues.
B. If gay marriage is allowed, this number will rise significantly.
C. These very same people will logically follow those conclusions.
D. Religions that teach against homosexuality and gay marriage will been seen like racists today.
I really don’t see the connection here and commented:
I just don’t see how seeing anti-gay marriage proponents in the same view as racists inhibits religious freedom.
Everyone is perfectly allowed to be as close-minded as they want or adhere to whichever sacred text they find sacred. It is when these religions views enter the public sphere and legislation that they are harmful to equality and civil rights.
I don’t see what the risk is… What future are we scared of? What are actual tangible events that would indicate that this is happening?
Why do you not approve of gay marriage? Do you feel that I am not capable of maintaining a relationship? Do you feel that I am not capable of raising a child with another man?
I’m wanting to understand where you draw your beliefs.
I want to drop my offense stance and take a step back and try to understand where he is drawing his conclusions. Scripture? Catechism? Hunch? I want to understand what terrible future awaits us if gay marriage happens – and further, does he propose any strengthening of straight marriage like harsher penaties for adultery? We hear so much about how gay marriage is threatening straight marriage but little on how to strengthen straight marriage on its own two (four?) feet.
I want to slice the prejudice into slivers and see what is really at play… is it 2 men raising children that is the problem? Is it 2 men having a sexual relationship? 2 women? What is the real ‘disgust’ at work? Is it that the love that 2 men or 2 women have for eachother could never possibly equal the love that a man and a woman have and to equate them degrades the man/woman relationship? Does he think that I’m just mentally ill because I have a boyfriend? Are gay people just not well in the head?
And what is my course of action: should I try therapy, an ex-gay program…? If I had children would I need to give them up to relatives…? To the state?
Is there any sort of research that would need to be done that would prove to him that gay marriage is not harmful and he would change his mind?
Is it a notion of some mythical ‘gay lifestyle’ where I’m constantly out hunting butt sex and crystal?
Update: HP has responded:
Lets say that there were two politicians, one who believed that blacks were inferior to whites and the other who believed gay marriage should not be allowed.
Given your premise, that gay issues are equal to race issues, how would you say these politicians should be treated? The same right? In other words, gay marriage will push religious people, especially those religious people that believe gay marriage should not be legal, into the corners of society.
I believe both are bigots, yes. But there are bigots who are hardly in the corners of society. This won’t push all religious people into the corners – just the ones that hold these views. Plenty of religious people support same-sex marriage – it is not either/or. To not allow gay marriage in your church is fine and dandy – that is your private right as a religious institution – but to not allow it recognized at the state level – that is a different matter. I think it is a frequent scare tactic used (I’m not saying HP is using it) to mobilize anti-marriage rights Christians – that the government will force them to have men kissing in their church. Not so. I don’t want to go to that narrow-minded church. I’ll find my own place of worship.
As far as my views on gay marriage, they are all natural based related. In other words, to summarize what I said in more detail here, it all basically boils down to children. Marriage has always been tied to children, and the proper upbringing of children.
In other words, I am against gay marriage for the same reason that our society currently is against first-cousin marriages, because they are inherently ordered against the procreation of children.
The loving commitment of a heterosexual union, by its very nature, has the potential for children. It is the core of all families, and something that is cross cultural, it is unique, makes its mark on everyone, and is the basic building block of all societies. It has something that all other unions fall short of, whether they be first cousin unions, polygamous unions, platonic unions, and yes, even homosexual unions.
What about marriage where one of the spouses is sterile/infertile?
Or single parent families?
If the possibility for children is at the core of marriage – is a childless marriage a failed one?
And couldn’t a lesbian couple have children?
The original intent of marriage was hardly about loving – it was about property rights and children.
And any argument any other union gives to being established into law, the loving heterosexual union has that claim, and more. And therefore should always be seen separate and above all other unions.
So I think it boils down the old Adam and Eve (not Steve) argument. Tabs and slots. Even after studies have confirmed that same gender parents and their relationships with their children have no discernible difference between that of a heterosexual relationship.
Sidenote, I think what is also missing is my deep respect for heterosexual marriage – but further – a deep respect for parenting. Most of us are the product of a heterosexual marriage. I was raised by two wonderful, fantastic, absolutely loving people – why shouldn’t I be able to extend that legacy by having my own children?
To base things on ‘nature’ and anatomy presents challenges because every day humans do things that they aren’t anatomically supposed to do.
I have a heart. I can love. I should be able to see that love to another generation.
Anyway, thank you, Hispanic Pundit – for helping me understand your views. I need to engage disagreement more often.