Homosexual Marriage (aka digging up a hot-button topic)

[rodyshusband]

Jac,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful post. I always appreciate and benefit from your input.

A secular culture would argue from 2 points:
1.) Who are you to say what "love" is and what "love" is not? It's up to the individual to determine what love is for them (post modern worldview)
2.) If a child needs to be loved, what is wrong with an adult "loving" them? Isn't it "better" for a child to be "loved" by an adult who wants to "love" them then by a parent who has rejected the child?

In a culture where pragmatic emotion rules, consent become less of an issue... If I "feel" I am doing "good", what else matters?

http://come-and-hear.com/editor/ca-wt-04-19-02/
ink.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01091326

[Jac3510]

I don't have any doubt that there are people out there who advocate allowing sex between children and adults. Heck, there's an entire group dedicated to that (NAMBLA). But you can't take an article here and book there and call it a movement. I'd note that the articles you linked were 11 and 30 years old, respectively. I can link to articles from the 80s arguing that we should be afraid of global freezing. But beyond the fact what you've cited here is rather dated (again, it wouldn't be hard to find more recent material saying the same), I'd point out that even in those articles, consent is still the central concern. The main argument in the articles is that children can consent to sexual relationships. That, however, is a much, much harder argument to make, and there is a very, very large body of psychological literature arguing that children are not capable of such consent. Add to that, if children ARE capable of sexual consent, it would seem hard not to argue that they aren't capable of legal consent, and who wants to allow children the right to sign contracts at twelve years old? No, on the consent issue, polygamy, not pedophilia, is the next step. And, frankly, I have absolutely NO idea why we wouldn't allow polygamy if we are going to accept the arguments for gay marriage. If two people can commit themselves to a permanent, loving, sexual relationship, why can't three or more?

Concerning your two points:

1. If we have to assume postmodernism, we've already given away the farm anyway. As I'm sure you see why that is, I won't go into detail. So I'm content to make the standard arguments against all forms of relativism and point out that while I nobody, reality is all that matters. And since reality is what it is regardless of who likes it or not, the question is only who has understood it properly. So what is love? That's not a question of preference, "What do you want love to be?" It's a question of fact. It doesn't take too much work to show that the common view of love is grossly lacking in substance, and eventually, whether we like it or not, everyone gets around to agreeing with its essential nature as I described previously. The better question for them would not be, "Why is THAT love," but rather, "Then fine--why should we insist that marriage is based on LOVE? Why can't it just be based on romantic attraction?" And to that, I think the answer speaks to itself, and even if it doesn't, that's what my entire second part was about.

2. All children need love. No child needs a sexual encounter, and especially with an adult. Anybody who would make that argument is just loony. Again, it isn't hard to show why that kind of interaction is very harmful to a child's psychological development. I'm a hospital chaplain, and while that doesn't make me a mental health professional, it means that I spend a LOT of time talking with people about where their emotional issues come from. It also means, because of that, that I spend a lot of time with the mental health community, and I promise you, to say that there is no consensus that having a sexual encounter as a child is a good thing is so obvious as to be trivial. The exact opposite is the case. Again, don't let the random "academic" article here or there fool you into thinking that there is a movement. Those people are tenured, so they can say whatever the hell they want. The consensus is, and will remain, that child-adult sexual encounters constitutes sexual abuse of the child. The gray area here is not whether or not it is harmful; the gray area is what makes a "child." States differ on that -- for some its 17. For some, 16. For some, 18. You might find somebody pushing and saying that thirteen or fourteen is fine, but even then, you'll have caveats saying that a thirteen can consent with, say, a seventeen year old, but any older and the possibility of abuse is too strong, since such an adult has way too much power over someone so young.

Bottom line: you cannot make the argument that children need a sexual relationship, and that being sexually active with an adult is the better option (than anything, really). At that point, you may as well argue that child-prostitution is fine!

The thing to watch for in the next ten years is the increasing acceptable of homosexuality and the beginning arguments for polygamy. The sexual issues to watch for regarding children are those pertaining to sex change operations, boys being allowed in girls bathrooms and vice-versa, and MAYBE the call for the government to stop recognizing gender at all in children until they have come to the point that they are able to "declare" it for themselves. But sex with adults? No, that's not coming any time soon.

edit:

As an aside, and this is just sort of practical apologetics stuff . . .

I would advise being VERY careful about advancing arguments that you think your opponent is or should be or will argue for. In the first place, while there are legitimate forms of slippery slope arguments (reductio ad absurdum), most people can't distinguish between them and simple slippery slope fallacies. In this case, homosexual advocates so long accused conservatives of slippery slope arguments that ANYTHING comes across that way ("If you allow gay marriage, then THIS will happen next!"), and then your arguments will degenerate into the very unhelpful place of what constitutes a reductio and what constitutes a slippery slope. You are then no longer arguing the issue, which is to your disadvantage.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, MOST homosexual advocates find pedophilia morally outrageous. When you, then, say, "If gay sex, why not child sex?" you don't make any progress towards persuading them; all you do is tick them off. They feel like they're being misrepresented and not heard. They feel like you are equating them with a child rapist, and whether that is your intention or not, at that point, you have lost ANY ability to a rational conversation about a very sensitive topic. I mean, why would you want to talk openly and honestly about your ideas when that persons thinks you advocate child rape?!?

It isn't your job to prove your argument. It is your job to talk to HUMAN BEINGS about issues HUMAN BEINGS face. It's very easy to be cold and analytical and ignore what people feel. But REAL apologetic work isn't coldly rational. It recognizes that we are talking to people who are more emotional than rational (and that includes you, by the way--if you are honest, I bet you would admit that, sometimes, it just FEELS good to "stick it to" somebody who is just clearly and obviously wrong!). Therefore, real apologetic work focuses as much on the "heart" as the "head." I didn't realize that myself for a very long time, but when someone is laying in a hospital bed suffering from an incurable disease and they ask you, "Why would God let this happen to me?" you quickly realize that all of your theological answers to the problem of evil are actually no help, because that question isn't REALLY about theology proper. It's about their own suffering. They want to know where God is in their pain. Note that God didn't give Job a rational explanation as to why he was suffering--He didn't tell him about the "bet" between He and the devil. All God basically said, in very strong language, is, "Job, just trust Me. You can trust Me." By way of analogy, homosexual advocates have honest intellectual questions, but for a lot of them who are gay, this is VERY personal. You are telling them that they can't "love" the person they are SO attracted to. Think about how YOU feel for your spouse, and imagine if you were being told that it was sinful to express that. That would hurt, wouldn't it? And emotions aren't rational, so when you are already hurt, it's easy to take rational arguments and hear them as patronizing or offensive.

So, yes, by all means, be rational. Show the problems with different positions. But by even more means, do so compassionately. Do so respectfully, fully aware of the fact that people are really hurting. They don't need your judgment (not that you are judging!). They need your love and support to cope with real suffering. In practice, whatever that means you SHOULD do, it most certainly means you should NOT advance arguments that they will take personal offense to.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

The thing to watch for in the next ten years is the increasing acceptable of homosexuality and the beginning arguments for polygamy. The sexual issues to watch for regarding children are those pertaining to sex change operations, boys being allowed in girls bathrooms and vice-versa, and MAYBE the call for the government to stop recognizing gender at all in children until they have come to the point that they are able to "declare" it for themselves. But sex with adults? No, that's not coming any time soon.

America is trailing Canada - which is trailing Western Europe - in regards to polygamy. There is a sizeable Muslim population from the Magrheb in Montreal and it is an open secret that polygamous unions are numerous. I've worked with polygamists, I've been to polygamist's homes and I suspect some people of being polygamists.* As long as they remain discreet, nothing will happen from a legal standpoint. However, demographic pressure** and the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms will force the federal government to recognize the right of these people to live as they please.

With regards to homosexual unions, America is again trailing Canada, and English-speaking Canada is trailing French-speaking Canada. I am no longer surprised when I see two gays or lesbians embracing themselves in public. To wit, I was at the airport yesterday to greet my wife on her return from Florida. Amid the people waiting for their loved ones, two ''husbands'' were reunited. They embraced and kissed each other warmly right in front of me, in full view of everybody, including children. Nobody seemed to care.

If you've ever been to continental Europe, you know that men and women already share the same public toilets, with the men standing at urinals as the women walk by to the stalls. It is a bit unnerving at first, but I got used to it. In French canada, we are just starting this ''openness.'' Sex change operations? We're ahead of the USA as well: Montreal is home to the most important sex-change facility in North America.

Come to think of it...you guys are quite backwards. If it's any consolation, you'll quickly catch up.

FL

*the extra adult women in a household are introduced as ''sister'' or ''aunt''...
**Muslims have 4.7 children/woman. French Canadians have 1.3 children/woman.

[MarcusOfLycia]

This topic has come up between myself and several friends/family members recently. The following is a small list of the resources I've discovered on the topic (all of them non-religious in nature). Hopefully these help some people think on this issue in a more logical way:

One of the only long-term studies on the issue:
http://www.familystructurestudies.com/

The response to this study and its author by pro-gay-marriage advocates (and his subsequent vindication by other statistics experts):
http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/133107/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/art ... ?nopager=1

In countries with gay marriage, the result on regular marriage:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... warns.html

The effects of gay marriage on the law and government:
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/338682

On equality:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013 ... ge-debate/

Example of someone growing up in a gay parent environment speaking out:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie ... parenting/

On the definition of marriage (excellent):
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1722155

Full secular case against gay marriage #1 (good; focused on children):
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012 ... -marriage/

Full secular case against gay marriage #2 (very good; focused on logical contradiction):
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6653

[Kurieuo]

Marriage is a religious concept, so what do governments have to do with God? They can try to forbid, corrupt or redefine what is holy, but it'll still remain what it is - divine in nature.

[Ivellious]

Marriage is a religious concept, so what do governments have to do with God? They can try to forbid, corrupt or redefine what is holy, but it'll still remain what it is - divine in nature.

This point might be valid, except the governments of the world do and will continue to give major benefits to "married" couples according to their laws/definitions. The legal benefits make a marriage license a purely secular thing, or it should be in the eyes of the government. So, when a government uses a particular religious preference/view as its definition of who gets to have certain benefits, they are violating any kind of separation of church and state that might exist.

I would be all for governments getting out of the business of promoting marriage through benefits and incentives. But that will never happen because all the straight couples that get those benefits are very unlikely to accept losing those benefits in order to make this happen.

And also, you might believe that marriage is divine in nature and only between one man and one woman, and you have every right to believe that. But that shouldn't make your beliefs into absolute law over all people in a secular, diverse country. Well, to this point it has, but it shouldn't any longer.

Example of someone growing up in a gay parent environment speaking out:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie ... parenting/

This is a terrible article as far as pointing out "flaws" in homosexual parenting. This is just an example of bad parenting. You can't take an example of having an awful father and say that it was all because he was gay. Nor can you say his lifestyle choices were because he was gay. If you want to bring this in as "evidence" that gays are bad or worse parents than straights, let me find thousands of examples of similarly terrible straight parents (even straight couples) to show you just how awful it is to have straight parents. The logic just doesn't follow through.

And, for the record, this also fails as an argument because there are plenty of people raised by homosexual parents that grow up and are highly successful and speak out in favor of their parents. No matter what parenting situation you look at, there will be examples of good an bad parenting, and examples of kids who grow up to admire their parents and those who resent them.

Full secular case against gay marriage #2 (very good; focused on logical contradiction):
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=6653

All that I got out of this is that the government is evil and tyrannical because they deal with marriage at all (which I touched on above). That, and marriage is just so old that we shouldn't ever change it. Of course, they made that argument against "changing" slavery laws and segregation laws, too. Those cultural norms are practically as ancient as monogamous marriage. Was it bad to change them on the basis of them being old? Also, an incorrect claim is made; Yes, ancient cultures made ceremonies and promoted men and women marrying. But the blogger fails to mention that ancient cultures also celebrated homosexual unions as well. So again, it's a moot point.

Full secular case against gay marriage #1 (good; focused on children):
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012 ... -marriage/

On equality:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013 ... ge-debate/

Two big issues with some of the papers and "research" cited in these and other articles you linked to. First, they all incorrectly draw conclusions by comparing heterosexual marriage and homosexual "relationships," especially when talking about promiscuity and length of the relationship.

My favorite BS example is comparing the average length of a heterosexual marriage vs. a homosexual relationship. Sure, the gap looks immense. Only 5% of gay relationships last over 20 years! But wait...how do you compare someone's relationship with that of a marriage? If we simply asked any adult couples, I guarantee the numbers would even out. After all, how many heterosexual relationships last 20 years? Not many. People date and even can have years-long relationships but a very low percentage of those relationships get to the point of marriage.

Also, I love how one of the articles that is cited very clearly states that data on homosexual parenting and relationships are very limited and short-term, so we shouldn't trust that most of them say that there is zero difference between heterosexual and homosexual parenting. And then, in the same breath, she says that the couple of bits of research that do show a discrepancy support her, and those ones you can trust. Seriously? Talk about some biased picking and choosing and ignoring 99% of the research out there. Just imagine if pharmaceutical companies could just pick and choose the studies that supported their drugs. Yeah...that's not legit science in the least.

Off to class, but you get the idea

[MarcusOfLycia]

This is a terrible article as far as pointing out "flaws" in homosexual parenting.

It is one example. There are others. I am under the impression you would likely find the others "awful" as well. Parenting, however, requires the creation of children, which depends upon sexual relations.

But the blogger fails to mention that ancient cultures also celebrated homosexual unions as well.

Where? As marriage? How many societies? For how long? And how does one have a sexual union outside of a man-woman relationship? (no need to be graphic, it is a rhetorical biological fact)

All that I got out of this is that the government is evil and tyrannical because they deal with marriage at all (which I touched on above).

This is false. I linked to the first part of a four part series, and that is not a very good analysis of it at all.

Two big issues with some of the papers and "research" cited in these and other articles you linked to. First, they all incorrectly draw conclusions by comparing heterosexual marriage and homosexual "relationships," especially when talking about promiscuity and length of the relationship.

Don't put the word research in quotes. It was genuinely well researched, and statisticians, sociologists, and psychologists all validated it. I posted one such validation. I can post more. The study was long-term and well done, and its conclusions are solid based on the evidence collected.

Off to class, but you get the idea

I have to be honest, I don't "get" the idea. You seem focused on one of the posts. I simply provided a variety.

Perhaps instead of critiquing that single post or dismissing decade-long studies, you could give -your- case for homosexual marriage?

Start by defining marriage and explaining why that definition is valid while mine (and tradition/natural law) is wrong.

[Kurieuo]

Marriage is a religious concept, so what do governments have to do with God? They can try to forbid, corrupt or redefine what is holy, but it'll still remain what it is - divine in nature.

This point might be valid, except the governments of the world do and will continue to give major benefits to "married" couples according to their laws/definitions. The legal benefits make a marriage license a purely secular thing, or it should be in the eyes of the government. So, when a government uses a particular religious preference/view as its definition of who gets to have certain benefits, they are violating any kind of separation of church and state that might exist.

I would be all for governments getting out of the business of promoting marriage through benefits and incentives. But that will never happen because all the straight couples that get those benefits are very unlikely to accept losing those benefits in order to make this happen.

And also, you might believe that marriage is divine in nature and only between one man and one woman, and you have every right to believe that. But that shouldn't make your beliefs into absolute law over all people in a secular, diverse country. Well, to this point it has, but it shouldn't any longer.

So then you'll argue for marriage because of "benefits". If that's the reason you get married then I made a mistake. Call it "civil union" if you want, but "marriage" is theological.

No earthly government will be perfect, but I have no issue with a Christian theocracy.

As for separate church and state, it's an American joke in my opinion that gives open-slather to Atheism as a default position. What is really meant is separation of theism and state -- check in your "God-beliefs" at the door and take up Atheism.

At the end of the day, governments will run how they run. Governments are good in that they restrict the amount of evil, but will never be perfect. With that, they can sanction and redefinie marriage how they see fit, but the true value and meaning of marriage still remains embedded in God, as does any meaning of moral good.

It still remains, that "marriage" is embedded in religion, or more correctly Theism. Even churches who change their tune to society like the Anglican church, or even Uniting and perhaps even the RCC one day, God stands over all.

[Ivellious]

So then you'll argue for marriage because of "benefits". If that's the reason you get married then I made a mistake. Call it "civil union" if you want, but "marriage" is theological.

No, I argued that if the governments are in the business of giving marriage benefits, then they ought to do it in a secular fashion instead of adhering to a specific religious view. And if all you want to do is argue with the word used, go ahead, but I think that's silly and as petty as it gets. Who cares if the government calls it marriage or civil unions? Talking about that just distracts from the real issue.

No earthly government will be perfect, but I have no issue with a Christian theocracy.

You, being a christian, certainly wouldn't. Of course, it would be no better for non-Christians than Saudi Arabia is for non-Muslims. It has nothing to do with the religion that the country follows in a theocracy. Persecution of the non-believers is simply an inevitability. And if you'd rather live in that kind of society...I guess good for you.

As for separate church and state, it's an American joke in my opinion that gives open-slather to Atheism as a default position. What is really meant is separation of theism and state -- check in your "God-beliefs" at the door and take up Atheism.

How is it a joke? Because people are finally waking up to the fact that people shouldn't have to follow the Christian religion if they live in the US? What's a joke is that we have supposedly had separation of church and state (and in some situations, it has been that way for over a hundred years), and yet only now are people really understanding what that means.

At the end of the day, governments will run how they run. Governments are good in that they restrict the amount of evil, but will never be perfect. With that, they can sanction and redefinie marriage how they see fit, but the true value and meaning of marriage still remains embedded in God, as does any meaning of moral good.

Indeed. And if you want to believe that your religion says that the secular society has it wrong, that is your right in America. But that doesn't give you a right to force everyone else to believe it and follow it as well. That's the key difference.

[Kurieuo]

So then you'll argue for marriage because of "benefits". If that's the reason you get married then I made a mistake. Call it "civil union" if you want, but "marriage" is theological.

No, I argued that if the governments are in the business of giving marriage benefits, then they ought to do it in a secular fashion instead of adhering to a specific religious view. And if all you want to do is argue with the word used, go ahead, but I think that's silly and as petty as it gets. Who cares if the government calls it marriage or civil unions? Talking about that just distracts from the real issue.

You introduced something entirely irrelevant.

By ignoring the reasons behind why many believe "marriage" is between male and female, you are ignore one side. "Civil union" is man-made, "Marriage" is divine. Big difference.

No earthly government will be perfect, but I have no issue with a Christian theocracy.

You, being a christian, certainly wouldn't. Of course, it would be no better for non-Christians than Saudi Arabia is for non-Muslims. It has nothing to do with the religion that the country follows in a theocracy. Persecution of the non-believers is simply an inevitability. And if you'd rather live in that kind of society...I guess good for you.

Again you're assume a secular position is somehow defaulted as better.

All humans a fallible.

As has often happened throughout history, persecution of believers (and non-believers) is much worse historically under secular rule.

As for separate church and state, it's an American joke in my opinion that gives open-slather to Atheism as a default position. What is really meant is separation of theism and state -- check in your "God-beliefs" at the door and take up Atheism.

How is it a joke? Because people are finally waking up to the fact that people shouldn't have to follow the Christian religion if they live in the US? What's a joke is that we have supposedly had separation of church and state (and in some situations, it has been that way for over a hundred years), and yet only now are people really understanding what that means.

I think the meaning today has been hijacked and warped beyond what your original forefathers intended.

At the end of the day, governments will run how they run. Governments are good in that they restrict the amount of evil, but will never be perfect. With that, they can sanction and redefinie marriage how they see fit, but the true value and meaning of marriage still remains embedded in God, as does any meaning of moral good.

Indeed. And if you want to believe that your religion says that the secular society has it wrong, that is your right in America. But that doesn't give you a right to force everyone else to believe it and follow it as well. That's the key difference.

Ahh, but don't you know... with governments what one person says doesn't really matter -- they'll force whatever they like upon the people whether secular, Christian, Islamic or what-have-you.

It is not me who is trying to "force" everyone else to believe and follow what I believe to be the case... but then if I were governor or president, I certainly see no issue with including my beliefs in my decisions just as a secular person would theirs. Fair is fair.

Just because I'm Christian you might jump up and down and scream "separation church and state, separation church and state"... but I would have been elected democratically due to who I am including my beliefs, so you'd just have to live with that since you're in the minority.

[Ivellious]

It is not me who is trying to "force" everyone else to believe and follow what I believe to be the case... but then if I were governor or president, I certainly see no issue with including my beliefs in my decisions just as a secular person would theirs. Fair is fair.

Just because I'm Christian you might jump up and down and scream "separation church and state, separation church and state"... but I would have been elected democratically due to who I am including my beliefs, so you'd just have to live with that since you're in the minority.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. You are right that your beliefs certainly impact your agenda and goals as a politician but there is a constitutional limit to that. For instance, take abortion. Abortion is not a purely religious issue. While your religious views may affect your judgement on the topic, it is perfectly rational to base an argument against abortion without invoking religious beliefs. In this case, your personal religious beliefs are included, but you aren't forcing religion on everyone if you vote against abortion rights.

Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is not similar to abortion in this way. There is no argument against gay marriage except one based in religious beliefs. Hence, if you let your religious beliefs influence your "no" vote on gay marriage, you are essentially saying that you want to require all people in your country/state/city to follow your religious belief, and that you plan on forcing them to do so. This is unconstitutional.

I think the meaning today has been hijacked and warped beyond what your original forefathers intended.

The forefathers founded a country on the basis of religious freedom, where a government would not impose one religious belief on the entire population, and in turn would not impede the free practice of any religion a person so desired (so long as such a religion did not inflict harm upon others). How has this been hijacked? That seems to pretty much sum up how separation of church and state is applied today.

Again you're assume a secular position is somehow defaulted as better.

I think if you wanted a free society, where people are allowed to make their own choice of religion, secular government is the only way to achieve that. It's certainly not perfect but unless you prefer outlawing all but one religion...you don't have many other options.

As has often happened throughout history, persecution of believers (and non-believers) is much worse historically under secular rule.

I disagree. You are probably referring mainly to recent communist regimes, which demanded that religion be cut out of society to provide the rulers with better control of the population (or so they thought, anyway). This is not a secular society in the least. Secularism respects the religious inclinations of all people, allowing them to practice their religions freely and not requiring the entire society to adhere to one religion's beliefs over another. Massive difference between promoting secularism (all religions are equal, including atheism) and communist atheism (all religions except atheism or other state religion must be purged from society).

[Kurieuo]

Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is not similar to abortion in this way. There is no argument against gay marriage except one based in religious beliefs. Hence, if you let your religious beliefs influence your "no" vote on gay marriage, you are essentially saying that you want to require all people in your country/state/city to follow your religious belief, and that you plan on forcing them to do so. This is unconstitutional.

While I see no issue with that -- "forcing" or I'd prefer "influencing" -- and I also wouldn't call them "religious beliefs" since I don't affiliate with any religion albeit I have these "theistic beliefs" (just like an Atheist may not submit the the church of Dawkins although he/she has their atheistic beliefs in common)...

But... even naturally speaking, one can argue that "nature" did not intend homosexuality as part of its design. It goes against the evolutionary purpose... and where one breaks the intended design of something, things tend to fall apart.

While I feel for homosexual persons that for whatever reason they are not attracted to the opposite sex -- as would be expected in the natural design of how things work with offspring and by extension families which are the way us homo sapiens sapiens have "evolved" or been "designed" to continue the circle of human life -- I feel this is a corruption of the design of things.

And... while you may think otherwise, I see that it is important that children have both male and female role models in their lives. Same-sex couples may get around this, through introducing an uncle, aunt or what-have-you, but at the end of the day -- you really can't beat a "Mum" and "Dad" especially if that is in fact the intended design for families.

[B. W.]

Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is not similar to abortion in this way. There is no argument against gay marriage except one based in religious beliefs. Hence, if you let your religious beliefs influence your "no" vote on gay marriage, you are essentially saying that you want to require all people in your country/state/city to follow your religious belief, and that you plan on forcing them to do so. This is unconstitutional.

While I see no issue with that -- "forcing" or I'd prefer "influencing" -- and I also wouldn't call them "religious beliefs" since I don't affiliate with any religion albeit I have these "theistic beliefs" (just like an Atheist may not submit the the church of Dawkins although he/she has their atheistic beliefs in common)...

But... even naturally speaking, one can argue that "nature" did not intend homosexuality as part of its design. It goes against the evolutionary purpose... and where one breaks the intended design of something, things tend to fall apart.

While I feel for homosexual persons that for whatever reason they are not attracted to the opposite sex -- as would be expected in the natural design of how things work with offspring and by extension families which are the way us homo sapiens sapiens have "evolved" or been "designed" to continue the circle of human life -- I feel this is a corruption of the design of things.

And... while you may think otherwise, I see that it is important that children have both male and female role models in their lives. Same-sex couples may get around this, through introducing an uncle, aunt or what-have-you, but at the end of the day -- you really can't beat a "Mum" and "Dad" especially if that is in fact the intended design for families.

What K mentions is brilliant:

"... even naturally speaking, one can argue that "nature" did not intend homosexuality as part of its design. It goes against the evolutionary purpose... and where one breaks the intended design of something, things tend to fall apart."

Homosexualism goes against the laws of evolutionary purpose...

How does one weasel around that?

Thank you K, I'll use this next debate on this topic...
-
-
-

[Rob]

How does one weasel around that?

I've heard the argument that we've evolved beyond mere survival and that's what separates us from the animals.
We can decide what is right and wrong.

For obvious reasons, I very much disagree with the latter bit.

[B. W.]

How does one weasel around that?

I've heard the argument that we've evolved beyond mere survival and that's what separates us from the animals.
We can decide what is right and wrong.

For obvious reasons, I very much disagree with the latter bit.

Then, it is an evolved moral right for a species to go extinct by its denial of procreation on the account of LOVE chemicals...

So nuclear war annihilation of all life on earth is justifiable too.
-
-
-