- Most arguments for the legitimacy of homosexuality have to do primarily with the assumption that it is a natural tendency that people are born with. This can be countered easily, because society has given us umpteen prime examples that closely parallel this theory. Certain "natural tendencies" (even hereditary tendencies) have been black-flagged as unacceptable by our society today. The tendency to commit horrible crimes without remorse is called sociopathy. This is probably the most extreme and easily understood example. Some others are cannibalism and murder. Anything regularly occurring in nature will do. The ultimate pincer movement would be to follow from the opposite direction. Pointing out that homosexual trends occur nowhere else in nature forces the oppostiong to admitt a fundamental flaw in the "natural theory" or they may revert to one of the following...
- Another argument in support of gay marriage is the separation of church and state. Some say that the suppression and limitations of marriage licenses excluding all relationships outside of those between man and woman are caused solely by the influence of the religious establishment upon the sovereign government. Marriage was introduced solely by the religious establishment and continues to be a religious bond (first and foremost) today. The legal equivalent (separated from the church) is a civil union. Marriage is also listed in article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the language: MEN AND WOMEN of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (this demonstrates that your point of view is still a WORLD point of view)
- The third argument is based on the ambiguity of the noun, love. To say that any relationship founded on legitimate love constitutes marriage, is to make a claim that intimidates the opposing side. It would seem that the only way to dispel such a claim would be to attack the true definition of love, but there is no concrete definition of the word. The best argument that I have found is the introduction of grossly extreme hypothetical situations that push the "pro-gay marriage" side further and further to their own extreme to the point that they become uneasy with their own logic. You might suggest that anybody that falls in love with their own mother or father should be entitled to a legal incestuous marriage. Polygamy is another great example. Anything leading up to and including beastiality will do as long as it parallels and allows for a mutual bond founded on "love." (i.e. an inanimate object cannot love a person back, so it is not a good example)... This is NOT a diversionary tactic nor a tangent, but an attack of their logical support for gay marriage. Once they say that incest, polygamy, or beastiality is wrong, all you need to do is tie each relationship to "love" and demonstrate that one cannot simply draw the line where it is convenient. Either "love knows no bounds" or there are natural boundaries in place. Forcing them to deal in absolutes pushes them into discomfort with their own logic. If you attack the reason for their belief, you attack the validity of their belief.
- It is apparent that liberal views are much more popular these days. This is NOT because they are all morally right, but because they are trendy. It's more popular to be "progressive" these days. People want to affect change no matter what the cost. Certain terms have been popularized and tied to gay marriage: open mindedness, free thinking, accepting, ignorant (negative term describing those against gay marriage that can be countered as long as you present your argument intelligently), and many others... most of the time all that is necessary to deflect the above terms are their own true definitions. Educate yourself on what these terms truly represent. The reason these terms are popularized is their ambiguity and the ease with which arbitrary definitions can be tied to them.
- There are many more points on your side of the discussion, but I don't care to post any more tonight. These are mostly to get you started thinking. I know that, to the religious individual, reverting to your faith seems fool proof, but it is largely ineffective. You have to discuss these topics on a purely secular basis to make forward progress with most people. The beauty with this subject is that it is so fundamentally black and white that the discussion can remain just as clear. Introduction of religious doctrine can blur the black and white subject into a gray enigma if introduced too early. Let me know if you have any questions (assuming you actually read this and/or care about it)... anybody care to guess what my position on gay marriage really is?
a video related to a life decision i recently made...
Blog Archive
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Arguing against Gay Marriage without reverting to religious doctrine:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment