[Aussie_Lovin126]

Hi there,
I am a bit new, but I would appreciate any thoughts you all had on the issue afore mentioned. What I need is arguments for and against homosexual marriages and adoptions. I need solid arguments though; you know, with solid reasons (proof) supporting your views. I have looked online, but now I would love to see what people (not the media) thinks. I am open to any and all info, but please have tact and common courtesy. I am sympathetic to homosexuals' plea for equality, but wish to see others' views! Thanks, ahead of time, for any in put. Also, it would be great to know if you have ever come in contact with homosexuals and if it was a good or bad encounter. Thanks, again!
AussieLovin126

[jbm222]

Are you looking for personal opinions that are going to involve religious reasons for most people on here, or strictly philisophical arguments that require only logic and observation to support?

[agrimes87]

try some common sense reasons for arguing against it....

1) there are 2 sexes
2) if we were all homosexual, the race would die off
3) the vast majority of the world is not homosexual
4) this movement is very recent
5) etc.

there's loads of common sense evidence.

for arguing FOR it, you could use human rights, the fact that nobody can explain how or why homosexuality comes about, etc.

There are loads and loads of websites dedicated to the very purpose of debating both sides of this argument. I've done essays on this topic many times in school, simply because of how easy it is to obtain information on it.

[jbm222]

"2) if we were all homosexual, the race would die off"

If everyone used birth control every time they had sex, the race would die off. So unless you're against birth control, you better reconisder using that to defend your posistion on gays.

"3) the vast majority of the world is not homosexual"

The vast majority of the is not Chrisitan.

"4) this movement is very recent"
Think again! Look in Genesis for the story of Lot and his visitors. I'm pretty sure it's between chapters 10 & 20.

It was also VERY common in Hellenistic Geece around 300 B.C. and like most things from Greek culture, it continued in Roman culture until the "fall" of Rome.

A philosophy professor WILL know Greek history, since they are considered by many to be the founders of philosophy as we know it today in the western world.


I'm not trying to argue in favor of granting homosexual couples all the legal privileges of heterosexual couples. I'm a Christian, and believe homosexuality is sinful. It's very easy to support my position using the Bible.

However, the Bible is generally not considered a good source for federal laws in democratic countries. And it's NEVER the final authority when law makers get together.

It's hard enough to argue against homosexual marriage to a politician.

To read this first post, this paper has to convince a philosopher. And as far as logic is concerned, all those arguements you listed are USELESS from a secular perspective.

[agrimes87]

Originally Posted by jbm222

"2) if we were all homosexual, the race would die off"

If everyone used birth control every time they had sex, the race would die off. So unless you're against birth control, you better reconisder using that to defend your posistion on gays.

yes, but straight couples can stop using birth control if they want to have children. i was referring to the fact that if this movement grew to a certain point, the human race would begin to die off. although that's far-fetched.

"3) the vast majority of the world is not homosexual"

The vast majority of the is not Chrisitan.

yes, but christians are anti-homosexual (most of them), and so if your argument is that by choosing christianity even though it's unpopular, you can't use the argument that homosexuality is unpopular, then you're correct. lol. my bad.

"4) this movement is very recent"
Think again! Look in Genesis for the story of Lot and his visitors. I'm pretty sure it's between chapters 10 & 20.

It was also VERY common in Hellenistic Geece around 300 B.C. and like most things from Greek culture, it continued in Roman culture until the "fall" of Rome.

i'm referring to the recent gay pride movement. sure homosexuality has existed for thousands of years, but it has always been either illegal, or at least looked down on (with the rare exception of places like Nineveh, Sodom, and Gemorrah).

However, the Bible is generally not considered a good source for federal laws in democratic countries. And it's NEVER the final authority when law makers get together.

which is why i avoided using biblical arguments. actually, i didn't intend on posting arguments. i was more less attempting to point him/her in the right direction. in doing so, i posted spontaneous ideas, and didn't make it clear that i wasn't thinking it through.

[jbm222]

The "if we were all gay, the human race would die off" one is probably actually the most valid.

And for the record, a very large percentage of the Greek military was gay and no one looked down it.

And the term "lesbian" came from Greek times when the women of a place called lesbos would have homosexual orgies when their gay husbands were away at war.

[Aussie_Lovin126]

Originally Posted by jbm222

Are you looking for personal opinions that are going to involve religious reasons for most people on here, or strictly philisophical arguments that require only logic and observation to support?

Sorry for the delay in response!
I am looking for both personal views as well as logical views, but I want evidence to support those views as correct or at least plausible. I do not want views that have no other justification than emotions. I prefer logical explanations, but the best would be a combination of the two. Personal views backed by logical reasoning. Did I make that clear...? Or am I confusing anyone?

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

Sorry for the delay in response!
I am looking for both personal views as well as logical views, but I want evidence to support those views as correct or at least plausible. I do not want views that have no other justification than emotions. I prefer logical explanations, but the best would be a combination of the two. Personal views backed by logical reasoning. Did I make that clear...? Or am I confusing anyone?

As far as evidence, you could go into the psychological research regarding the behavioral and child developmental (as opposed to genetic...goes into nature v. nurture) aspects leading up to a homosexual's sexual identity. I know its been found that gay men tended to play with girls at a young age as opposed to boys, likewise for gay women.

Once you've established that it is in fact behavioral (as opposed to genetic) go into the social consequences. A controversial and much criticsized recent study by a Harvard secular humanist (i.e. no "Christian" bias to worry about) states that divorce rates in Denmark (I believe) skyrocketed as out of wedlock births did. Then, I would go onto the social consequences regarding a weak family structure.

Hope this helps... please note that I've never taken philosophy so if this stinks, sorry... most of this comes from psych classes I've taken. Personally, if I were writing a philosophy paper on this I would probably take the ever unpopular stance of defending the right to marry by homosexuals, because you need to remember the same individual rights that government is supposed to protect, as well as historical evidence suggesting that America in fact is NOT a Christian nation.

Yeah... it'd be unpopular among my fellow evangelicals, but I was with voting for Kerry as well. *sigh*

[Aussie_Lovin126]

Hope this helps... please note that I've never taken philosophy so if this stinks, sorry... most of this comes from psych classes I've taken. Personally, if I were writing a philosophy paper on this I would probably take the ever unpopular stance of defending the right to marry by homosexuals, because you need to remember the same individual rights that government is supposed to protect, as well as historical evidence suggesting that America in fact is NOT a Christian nation.

Yeah... it'd be unpopular among my fellow evangelicals, but I was with voting for Kerry as well. *sigh*

Actually, I truly appreciate your input. I am sympathetic toward the homosexual cause. My brother is gay and displays as much love and devotion to his partner of choice as I do. I believe that marriage or a "civil union" is not just about child rearing, I believe it is a testimony that you will take notice in each other's lives... even the mundane things that happen every day! You promise to notice everything about that person and remember the things that make them special. I don't think this promise is limited to heterosexual couples, but that it is open to all couples, why not? Is it because we are too narrow minded???
One says that it is immoral... Why is it immoral? What makes something moral versus immoral? Is it God's command that makes it moral or does he command it because it is moral? More on this one later...
It is unnatural... What kind of an argument is that? We die our hair, we increase our bust size, we do LOTS of things that are "unnatural," but I do not see people out protesting hair dies or other "enhancements." If you mean by "unnatural," that we are only suppose to use sex as a means for reproduction, then I would have to say once again this does not make sense. Lots of things have multiple uses, others don't have any use at all. We use our eyes to see, but we also use them to flirt... right? We have a tail bone, but I do not see any real necessity for it other than to require you to carry a doughnut (did I spell that right?) seat around when it is bruised...? So, why do we say that sex only has one purpose when, most of our other body parts have several purposes?
If everyone was homosexual our species would die out... Uh, I totally agree with you... This one is FAR fetched, but I do not agree that it is the most valid. Obviously everyone in the world is not homosexual and likely never will be. You have just committed what we call the "Slippery Slope" argument. An invalid argument; there is no way to prove or disprove this statement, therefore, it has no value, other than a "what if..." Besides, with today's modern medical technology, our species would still live on even if we all did turn out to be gays and lesbians.
This is all I have time for right now, but does this have any validity behind it? Give me some positive criticism? I am still working on these and some other arguments, but have limited time. Thanks, for all your insight! AussieLovin126 (These smileys are kinda cool, let me know if they start to bug ya!)

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

This is all I have time for right now, but does this have any validity behind it? Give me some positive criticism? I am still working on these and some other arguments, but have limited time. Thanks, for all your insight! AussieLovin126 (These smileys are kinda cool, let me know if they start to bug ya!)

OK... I suppose since I was on a "Christian" forum I automatically assumed you were against gay marraige. I think your points are all valid, and personally I would use law, logic, and science to back them up.

I love being a "heathen" Democrat

[exo]

Originally Posted by Aussie_Lovin126

Actually, I truly appreciate your input. I am sympathetic toward the homosexual cause. My brother is gay and displays as much love and devotion to his partner of choice as I do.

This is an emotional argument.

I believe that marriage or a "civil union" is not just about child rearing, I believe it is a testimony that you will take notice in each other's lives... even the mundane things that happen every day! You promise to notice everything about that person and remember the things that make them special. I don't think this promise is limited to heterosexual couples, but that it is open to all couples, why not? Is it because we are too narrow minded???

One good argument is that marriage is not a right, but a priveledge. Why is that? Because 'rights' are things that are afforded to *everyone*: education, voting, etc. But priveledges are for those things that you have to qualify for. For instance: grants, driver's license, and, yes, marriage.

On the same token, marriage provides benefits to society as a whole in terms of procreation (creating the next generation of work force) and stability. It can then be shown that (committed) homosexual relationships are more unstable than heterosexual ones.

One says that it is immoral... Why is it immoral? What makes something moral versus immoral? Is it God's command that makes it moral or does he command it because it is moral? More on this one later...

I responded to this in another thread of yours.

It is unnatural... What kind of an argument is that? We die our hair, we increase our bust size, we do LOTS of things that are "unnatural," but I do not see people out protesting hair dies or other "enhancements." If you mean by "unnatural," that we are only suppose to use sex as a means for reproduction, then I would have to say once again this does not make sense. Lots of things have multiple uses, others don't have any use at all. We use our eyes to see, but we also use them to flirt... right? We have a tail bone, but I do not see any real necessity for it other than to require you to carry a doughnut (did I spell that right?) seat around when it is bruised...? So, why do we say that sex only has one purpose when, most of our other body parts have several purposes?

I agree that we cannot use this argument: It is unnatural.

If everyone was homosexual our species would die out... Uh, I totally agree with you... This one is FAR fetched, but I do not agree that it is the most valid. Obviously everyone in the world is not homosexual and likely never will be. You have just committed what we call the "Slippery Slope" argument. An invalid argument; there is no way to prove or disprove this statement, therefore, it has no value, other than a "what if..." Besides, with today's modern medical technology, our species would still live on even if we all did turn out to be gays and lesbians.

The statement there only goes to show that homosexuality is not biologically 'natural' in the sense of intent. Yes, it occurs in natural systems, but that is not the intent of nature.

But there is another argument to be used: If homosexuals are granted marriage benefits, then who is to stop the Mormons from marrying multiple people and for a sister to marry a brother? Where is the line drawn for who can marry who? The problem arises here, because you can use the very same arguments that homosexuals are using today to further their cause to justify these other types of marriage.

[whit3K2]

Well the Homosexual movement wants you to believe a lot of stuff for their cause, In 1996 they raised over $1.2 millon for lobbying purposes. Why, to deceive the public in beliving they are a 'minority' and can be discriminated against. In actuality, They are some of the most well off citizens in terms of annual earnings (second to Asian Americans, well 50% of us anyways) Although there is probably truth in their claims for equal medical assistance, they tend to live shorter lives and suffer from Aids and STD's on a larger scale. Homosexuals want to believe it is a genetic issue and not a choice, My question to them, is which one of their parents, grandparents, etc. were gay? Science cannot prove genetics is involved, only show there is a connection between certain genes and those who choose to be gay. And while I'm not against gay couples being able to enjoy priveleges the rest of the US enjoy, as citizens that live by other moral standards contray to the standards the country was founded on, they should not get the same standard of treatment.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by exo

One good argument is that marriage is not a right, but a priveledge. Why is that? Because 'rights' are things that are afforded to *everyone*: education, voting, etc. But priveledges are for those things that you have to qualify for. For instance: grants, driver's license, and, yes, marriage.

There are societies that extended this "privilege" to homosexuals, such as the Chinese and Romans (a few of them, anyway). Who decides who gets the privilege of marraige in a society, and by what criteria? This sounds like a non-argument ... as the very topic is should we give them the privilege.

On the same token, marriage provides benefits to society as a whole in terms of procreation (creating the next generation of work force) and stability.

This is also a non-argument; homosexuals would not procreate anyway, whether they were married or not.

It can then be shown that (committed) homosexual relationships are more unstable than heterosexual ones.

Committed African American relationships are more unstable, on average, than white relationships ... should we disallow blacks from marrying?

The statement there only goes to show that homosexuality is not biologically 'natural' in the sense of intent. Yes, it occurs in natural systems, but that is not the intent of nature.

Nature has an "intent"? In order to use this argument, you are going to have to prove that nature is teleological. Good luck with that ... it's never been done (and from what I understand of the assignment you aren't allowed to appeal to religious beliefs).

But there is another argument to be used: If homosexuals are granted marriage benefits, then who is to stop the Mormons from marrying multiple people and for a sister to marry a brother? Where is the line drawn for who can marry who? The problem arises here, because you can use the very same arguments that homosexuals are using today to further their cause to justify these other types of marriage.

This is a "slippery slope argument" ... also a non-argument. The question at hand is whether gays should be allowed to marry (or have civil unions as I like to call them ... the word "marraige" has a lot of baggage). If someone would like to bring up the question or whether or not incest was illegal, we would debate that in its own time.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by whit3K2

Well the Homosexual movement wants you to believe a lot of stuff for their cause, In 1996 they raised over $1.2 millon for lobbying purposes.

That's quite a bit less money than the Christian right lobby who wants you to believe they are all going to hell.

Why, to deceive the public in beliving they are a 'minority' and can be discriminated against.

They are discriminated against. Gay couples are disallowed from having the same hospital visitation rights, property rights and legal rights that straight couples have, because they are gay. Q.E.D.

In actuality, They are some of the most well off citizens in terms of annual earnings (second to Asian Americans, well 50% of us anyways)

what on earth does this have to do with whether or not they are discriminated against? That's like saying "there's no such thing as anti-Semitism because Jews are rich."

Although there is probably truth in their claims for equal medical assistance, they tend to live shorter lives and suffer from Aids and STD's on a larger scale.

What does this have to do with the argument?

Homosexuals want to believe it is a genetic issue and not a choice, My question to them, is which one of their parents, grandparents, etc. were gay? Science cannot prove genetics is involved, only show there is a connection between certain genes and those who choose to be gay.

I don't see how this is relevant to the argument either. Even if it is a choice, why does that mean they should not be allowed to have the same benefits as straight couples? I choose to be an atheist ... by your logic, I shouldn't be allowed to marry because you don't like the fact that I'm an atheist.

And while I'm not against gay couples being able to enjoy priveleges the rest of the US enjoy, as citizens that live by other moral standards contray to the standards the country was founded on, they should not get the same standard of treatment.

What an amazingly bigoted statement; I hope you do not actually mean what you are implying.

First of all the statement is a contradiction. "Equal standard of treatment" is a privilege that U.S. citizens enjoy. Blacks, for example, should be allowed to drink at the same drinking fountains as whites. It is their privilege, as citizens, to be treated with respect and dignity.

Second of all, you obviously do not agree with the "moral standards this country was founded on" ... for one thing I am guessing you think blacks should be allowed to drink at the same drinking fountains as whites (not what the original morals of this country said). You also presumably think women should be allowed to vote and hold jobs (not what original morals said).

You are also a Christian, I take it. Well, many of the founders of this country were atheists or Deists (see my signature). Are you really so sure you want to appeal to the "morals of early America" to justify your argument? I don't think you know what you're getting into.

[Casey]

Originally Posted by Qingu

That's quite a bit less money than the Christian right lobby who wants you to believe they are all going to hell.


They are discriminated against. Gay couples are disallowed from having the same hospital visitation rights, property rights and legal rights that straight couples have, because they are gay. Q.E.D.


what on earth does this have to do with whether or not they are discriminated against? That's like saying "there's no such thing as anti-Semitism because Jews are rich."


What does this have to do with the argument?


I don't see how this is relevant to the argument either. Even if it is a choice, why does that mean they should not be allowed to have the same benefits as straight couples? I choose to be an atheist ... by your logic, I shouldn't be allowed to marry because you don't like the fact that I'm an atheist.


What an amazingly bigoted statement; I hope you do not actually mean what you are implying.

First of all the statement is a contradiction. "Equal standard of treatment" is a privilege that U.S. citizens enjoy. Blacks, for example, should be allowed to drink at the same drinking fountains as whites. It is their privilege, as citizens, to be treated with respect and dignity.

Second of all, you obviously do not agree with the "moral standards this country was founded on" ... for one thing I am guessing you think blacks should be allowed to drink at the same drinking fountains as whites (not what the original morals of this country said). You also presumably think women should be allowed to vote and hold jobs (not what original morals said).

You are also a Christian, I take it. Well, many of the founders of this country were atheists or Deists (see my signature). Are you really so sure you want to appeal to the "morals of early America" to justify your argument? I don't think you know what you're getting into.

Word.

I'd like to see you guys' response to any of these arguments.

If you wanna cut through everything and get to the heart of the issue for a Christian:

What do you suppose Christ would have done? As Christians we are obligated to answer that question and do likewise. What do I believe he would have done? Love them. Period.

Thanks for Hanging around Qingu. You have so much more energy than some of us to rebuke these faulty arguments.

Casey