The Logic of Gay Marriage Equality

[Descyple]

Greetings to all of you. I rarely post in threads on this site, but I feel genuinely disheartened by numerous postings of many Christians here who either are indifferent to the growing acceptance of homosexuality or are outright supportive of the movement.

So I would like to put forward a very brief and simple challenge (hopefully in good honor and genuine respect) to those Christians who agree with the homosexual movement when they specifically demand "equal" marriage rights with heterosexuals. My challenge is actually taken from the book "Straight and Narrow? - Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate" by Thomas E. Schmidt who is a Greek and New Testament professor at Westmont College. His book is one of the best (and most sensitive) that I've read critiquing the logic used by the homosexual movement. Schmidt's point regarding this challenge is that when you actually examine in detail the marriage rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals, you realize that they have already been perfectly equal since the founding of Canada and the U.S. I will summarize his point as follows:

What "specific" marriage right(s) do I have as a heterosexual male in Canada or the U.S.?

1. Do I have the right to marry my sister? No, the Canadian and American governments will not allow me to have that right.

2. Do I have the right to marry a young under-aged girl? No, the Canadian and American governments will not allow me to have that right.

3. Do I have the right to marry my pet dog? No, the Canadian and American governments will not allow me to have that right.

4. Do I have (or ever had in North American history) the right to marry another man? No, the Canadian and American governments never allowed any heterosexual the right to marry within the same sex.

What marriage right(s) do I have then as an adult heterosexual? I have (and only ever had) one single marriage right, and that is to marry an adult female who is not in my immediate family. I have absolutely no other right(s) than that one. Now here the most important and essential question arises: do homosexual men in North America (both now and in its entire history) have that exact same right? Absolutely! Every single male homosexual that has ever lived in North America has always had, and continues to have, the right to marry an adult female not in his immediate family.

So if it is agreed that I as a heterosexual male have only one marriage right, and every homosexual male always possessed that exact same right, then in what way is there inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals regarding marriage? There is no inequality at all, and there never has been. This "equality" argument used by the homosexual movement (and now used by many sympathetic Christians) fails at the most basic logical level. If fails logically in this way; if a homosexual gains a marriage right that I do not have (marrying within the same sex) how would that make us equal? Not only does that not make us equal, that actually makes homosexuals superior in rights to every other social group, because they would be attaining a brand new right no one else ever had. And that would be just as irrational as me saying "I want the right to marry a three-year old girl, that way I will have equal marriage rights with homosexuals." But homosexual men don't have the right to marry three-year old girls. Do you see how irrational that kind of statement is? The only way the "equality" argument could actually work is if in reality heterosexual men were allowed to marry other heterosexual men, but homosexual men were not allowed to marry other homosexual men. That would then be blatant inequality. But we all know that hypothesis does not exist in reality.

I have not yet heard a proper definitive response to this logical challenge against the foundational argument employed by the homosexual movement. If there is an acceptable response to this challenge than I would graciously listen to it.

I would kindly ask in advance that you all understand what I am "not" asking for in this thread. This thread is not about how we should interpret the Bible's verses on homosexuality, nor is it about whether gay marriage will affect Christians positively or negatively in society. These are of course highly important, but irrelevant to the point of this particular thread.

For clarity sake, I will repeat my one single question for this thread - What "specific" marriage right(s) do heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not have themselves?

I look forward to reading the thoughts any of you might have (whether in agreement or disagreement) concerning the important subject of gay marriage equality and its relation to the basic laws of logic and rationality.

Your brother in Christ, Matthew

 

[Crypto]

Gay marriage violates Scripture and is an outright assault on the sanctity of marriage as God instituted it in Eden.

 

[Shard]

except you can get a completely godless marriage at a courthouse. So if two dudes want to go their and get hitched sure. Thats part of the whole thing were the US will establish no religion. Yeah nothing states the US constitution has to follow christian law. If you dont like it move to a theocracy. Their you can be sure gay marriage will never happen.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm sure the denizens of Soddom and Gomorrah used the same reasoning. What you fail to appreciate is what happens when Biblical principles are traded in for a statistical normality. Did the big bang somehow spew forth moral platitudes like "Be compassionate to others," "Care for those in need," etc... No it did not. When you discard God's moral law on the altar of anything including the altar of democracy morality suddenly becomes an ever changing illusion that historically has quickly digressed through deception into degeneracy.

From the degeneracy of democratic Athens to the degeneracy occurring in America today, the root problem was the same: a lack of God's morality for a morality decided by statistical normality.

Madame Roland found out how even good ideals like liberty can be abused as she was led to the guillotine to have her removed. An innocent woman, her eyes fastened on the artist David's statue of Liberty as she exclaimed, "Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name." The victim of a statistcal normality occurring in France at the time as God's morals were discarded.

In order to have a consistent and reasonable objective moral stance-a moral view in which you can substantiate a claim that this is right and that is wrong, this is good and that is evil-you need to have an objective moral basis. As C. S. Lewis argued so well, moral laws require a moral lawgiver, and I don't see how one can have an good and just objective lawgiver with anything other than the transcendent God of the Bible.

Theocracy? No need. Just a secular government founded upon the moral lawgiver of the Bible... exactly what we had and are moving away from quickly as we trade in the moral lawgiver for our best thinking or a statistical normality.

except you can get a completely godless marriage at a courthouse. So if two dudes want to go their and get hitched sure. Thats part of the whole thing were the US will establish no religion. Yeah nothing states the US constitution has to follow christian law. If you dont like it move to a theocracy. Their you can be sure gay marriage will never happen.

 

[Shard]

So the proper response would be to force people to live under the rules of something they don't believe in?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Unfortunately, it's impossible to have a Government where everyone agrees about the rules they live under.

For example, some Christians don't believe evolution should be taught in public education. They are forced to live under a rule they disagree with.

Some atheists don't believe they should have to use money that says "In God We Trust" stamped on it. They are forced to live under a rule they disagree with.

Governments simply must legislate explicit moral codes and other codes which have moral implications. And since people are not universally agreed as to what is moral and immoral, someone will always be forced to live under a rule they disagree with. Someone will always be forced to live by another person's morality.

Homosexuals and others believe that homosexual relationships are good and healthy. That is a part of their ethics on love.

Homosexuals are trying to legislate their moral views. So it's either going to be me forcing my ethic upon them through gov't or them forcing their ethic upon me through gov't.

Now, you may say that if they get what they want, gay marriage, that doesn't hurt me. But the legitimization of gross sin always has harmful effects upon a society in it's spiritual, moral, psychological, relational fabric.

Christians should never support gov't sanctioned immorality. Christians should seek the welfare of the city they are in, and this involves opposing sanctioning immorality which, if nothing else, will be harmful to those practicing the immorality.

And as a reductio ad absurdum, a Christian who says homosexuals should have gov't sanctioned rights to practice sin, because that is part of their secular ethic in the secular gov't. Must out of consistency argue for the legalization of infanticide (abortion), because that is also a part of the secular ethic in a secular gov't.

In fact, the Christian couldn't argue against the gov't sanctioning any form of immorality, like murder, in so far as the secular ethic decides that that moral action is permissible. So, for example, a Christian living in Nazi Germany could not object to Nazi Germany's policy regarding the mass extermination of Jews: because that was part of Nazi Germany's secular ethic in their secular gov't.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Relativism as the basis of law fails because it is relative. There will always be rules governing authorities place on populaces under their jurisdiction. The issue is whose rules and upon what "morality" are they based. Did I not just share the danger of moving from the moral lawgiver to a statistical normality? I can walk you through history and show you the end result of societies that choose to reject the moral lawgiver for their own statistical normality.

So the proper response would be to force people to live under the rules of something they don't believe in?

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I'm sure the denizens of Soddom and Gomorrah used the same reasoning. What you fail to appreciate is what happens when Biblical principles are traded in for a statistical normality. Did the big bang somehow spew forth moral platitudes like "Be compassionate to others," "Care for those in need," etc... No it did not. When you discard God's moral law on the altar of anything including the altar of democracy morality suddenly becomes an ever changing illusion that historically has quickly digressed through deception into degeneracy.

Indeed, godless ethics are very quick to crumble and spiral into worse and worse states. I saw this illustrated just last night as I talked to an atheist for over two hours.

He started out the conversation claiming that he could have the same ethical system that Christians can have. He could have objective morals without God and he even wanted to uphold such a strong ethic that animals were bound to morality! By the end of the conversation, he had conceded his entire position and admitted that "morality" was subjective and nothing more than a description of our preference and that we had no basis to say that it was wrong for Nazi Germany to do what they did.

Secular ethics is an ever changing position. It's not anchored to anything except the whims of the people.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes Credo, you are exactly right. Excellent post. There is no getting around the law of contradiction.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to have a Government where everyone agrees about the rules they live under.

For example, some Christians don't believe evolution should be taught in public education. They are forced to live under a rule they disagree with.

Some atheists don't believe they should have to use money that says "In God We Trust" stamped on it. They are forced to live under a rule they disagree with.

Governments simply must legislate explicit moral codes and other codes which have moral implications. And since people are not universally agreed as to what is moral and immoral, someone will always be forced to live under a rule they disagree with. Someone will always be forced to live by another person's morality.

Homosexuals and others believe that homosexual relationships are good and healthy. That is a part of their ethics on love.

Homosexuals are trying to legislate their moral views. So it's either going to be me forcing my ethic upon them through gov't or them forcing their ethic upon me through gov't.

Now, you may say that if they get what they want, gay marriage, that doesn't hurt me. But the legitimization of gross sin always has harmful effects upon a society in it's spiritual, moral, psychological, relational fabric.

Christians should never support gov't sanctioned immorality. Christians should seek the welfare of the city they are in, and this involves opposing sanctioning immorality which, if nothing else, will be harmful to those practicing the immorality.

And as a reductio ad absurdum, a Christian who says homosexuals should have gov't sanctioned rights to practice sin, because that is part of their secular ethic in the secular gov't. Must out of consistency argue for the legalization of infanticide (abortion), because that is also a part of the secular ethic in a secular gov't.

In fact, the Christian couldn't argue against the gov't sanctioning any form of immorality, like murder, in so far as the secular ethic decides that that moral action is permissible. So, for example, a Christian living in Nazi Germany could not object to Nazi Germany's policy regarding the mass extermination of Jews: because that was part of Nazi Germany's secular ethic in their secular gov't.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

He was deceived as you correctly discerned Credo. The fact that he was willing to admit it gives me hope for him. So many do not.

Indeed, godless ethics are very quick to crumble and spiral into worse and worse states. I saw this illustrated just last night as I talked to an atheist for over two hours.

He started out the conversation claiming that he could have the same ethical system that Christians can have. He could have objective morals without God and he even wanted to uphold such a strong ethic that animals were bound to morality! By the end of the conversation, he had conceded his entire position and admitted that "morality" was subjective and nothing more than a description of our preference and that we had no basis to say that it was wrong for Nazi Germany to do what they did.

Secular ethics is an ever changing position. It's not anchored to anything except the whims of the people.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

He was deceived as you correctly discerned Credo. The fact that he was willing to admit it gives me hope for him. So many do not.

Well that is my hope too. However, he did not make the concession as an "Oh, I guess you're right" type of thing but more as an "Okay, so who cares?" type of thing. He didn't seem disturbed by the implications of his newly adopted relativism or the fact that he had abandoned his earlier ship of objectivism. And this is what makes the secular relativistic ethic so dangerous. That it can be tossed about so easily and have it's principles of yesterday overturned without any concern.

 

[Shard]

Homosexuals and others believe that homosexual relationships are good and healthy. That is a part of their ethics on love.

Homosexuals are trying to legislate their moral views. So it's either going to be me forcing my ethic upon them through gov't or them forcing their ethic upon me through gov't.

Now, you may say that if they get what they want, gay marriage, that doesn't hurt me. But the legitimization of gross sin always has harmful effects upon a society in it's spiritual, moral, psychological, relational fabric.

Christians should never support gov't sanctioned immorality. Christians should seek the welfare of the city they are in, and this involves opposing sanctioning immorality which, if nothing else, will be harmful to those practicing the immorality.

I fail to see how gays getting married has any negative effects. I mean heterosexual marriage is a joke as it is. How much can homosexual marriage hurt stuff. And no one persecutes lying or coveting and those are just as equal as homosexuality, yet homosexuality is the only sin we focus on? Seems a little wrong.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I fail to see how gays getting married has any negative effects. I mean heterosexual marriage is a joke as it is. How much can homosexual marriage hurt stuff. And no one persecutes lying or coveting and those are just as equal as homosexuality, yet homosexuality is the only sin we focus on? Seems a little wrong.

Being happily thirty-four years happily married, I must disagree. Marriage, rightly done, is a blessing.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

And no one persecutes lying or coveting and those are just as equal as homosexuality, yet homosexuality is the only sin we focus on? Seems a little wrong.

Even though this was your last point I'm going to address it first, because what I say about your earlier remarks may bring you back to this.

i. There are many circumstances when lying is persecuted. As far as coveting, that's an intangible inward state that no one else really has access to. But if liars and coveters were trying to get gov't sanction for those sins or were in some way trying to legitimize them I would oppose those too. So I'm not being inconsistent.

ii. It's not true (in an unqualified sense) that lying is equal to homosexual practice. God judges all sin as being worthy of eternal separation from Him, but Scripture makes it clear that at another level some sins are more culpable than others.

That's why in the Old Testament things like homosexuality and murder received capital punishment, while lying and coveting didn't. If what you say is true, then not only should God have made every sin worthy of capital punishment (or maybe just a slap on the wrist?), but you apparently should think murder is worthy of the same punishment that lying is. So are you saying we should start giving coveters death row or are you saying we should ignore murderers like we do coveters?

iii. Homosexuality is not the only sin we focus on. The reason why we are focusing on it now is because that's the topic of this thread. The reason why we focus on it, when we do, in the public square is because homosexuals are pushing their agenda in the public square.

When the pedophiles, the drunkards, or the murderers start pushing their agenda in the public square and seek legitimization of their sins we will start focusing on that issue more. And when someone opens a thread on pedophilia we can focus on that there.

I fail to see how gays getting married has any negative effects.

Let's say it only has one negative effect: it legitimizes an abhorrent sin, making it easier for persons to embrace it and practice it themselves. That seems sufficient to oppose its being sanctioned by the government.

Again, Christians should seek the welfare of the city. That includes the moral welfare of the city. Thus, Christians should oppose any attempt to get government support and protection of morally destructive behavior.

The depraved homosexual mindset is itself apparently a judgment from God: "...God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie… God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. " (Romans 1:24–25, 28).

But it doesn't stop at homosexuality, it goes on: "They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:29–32).

Sin begets sin. A debased mind spirals ever downward, but for the grace of God. Allowing the gov't to sanction sin appears to be giving approval to those who practice sin and quickens the downward spiral insofar as persons sin more freely and with a freer conscience. For instance, Robert Gagnon in an article called "Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture" shows that a disturbingly large number of pro-homosexual literature also pushes towards the normalization of pedophilia.

But I think we can say more than simply that it has harmful moral consequences. According to Gagnon in the same article,

"A 2001 study of homosexual and heterosexual men and women in the Netherlands concluded that homosexual men were about three times more likely than heterosexual men to experience in the past year mood disorders (39%) and anxiety disorders (32%) and to have two or more DSM-III-R diagnoses (38%), while homosexual women were almost five times more likely than heterosexual women to experience substance abuse disorders (26%)" (ibid 5).

Gagnon cites this study because the Netherlands is one of the most liberal countries in existence and has positive attitudes towards homosexuality, so these negative findings can't be shrugged off as do to social stigma.​

So homosexuality apparently has harmful psychological consequences. In addition, it apparently has harmful physiological consequences:

"According to the San Francisco Department of Health 2001 HIV Consensus Data (released Jan. 31, 2001), 28.6% of San Francisco’s estimated 52,000 homosexual men (defined here as MSM or males who have sex with males)—somewhere between one-in-four and one-in-three male homosexuals—are HIV-positive. In addition, 85% of the number of persons living with AIDS are homosexual, even though male homosexuals comprise only 16% of the adult male population in the city. HIV infection rates in San Francisco have more than doubled since 1997. Even among intravenous drug users (IDU) HIV incidence among (IDU) homosexual men was nine times higher than among (IDU) heterosexual men" (ibid 37).​

As pro-homosexuals continue to successfully push for the normalcy and acceptance of their sin (the gay marriage thing is only one part of a larger agenda) the moral and, subsequently, social fabric of our society will decay. Opposing the pro-homosexual agenda in all its parts, including its attempt to legitimize homosexual unions via marriage, is an attempt to preserve the moral and social health of our country, but it also seeks to curb the harmful physiological and psychological effects of homosexual sin upon homosexuals themselves.

I mean heterosexual marriage is a joke as it is.

How is that an argument for legitimizing homosexual marriage? I fail to see the logic of "If our legitimate marriages are screwed up let's legitimize these unnatural sexual unions too." I mean, why stop with the unnatural homosexual union? If our legitimate sexual unions are screwed up, let's legitimize pedophilia, incest, and polyamory.

How much can homosexual marriage hurt stuff.

See above.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Look at the other Gay Marriage thread in the Young Adults forum: http://christianchat.com/christian-young-adults-forum/17930-gay-marriage.html

You have a 16 year old cheering on the homosexual lifestyle.

That's the successful desensitization tactics of the homosexual lobby. Legitimizing their marriage union will only further the impression among kids like that that homosexuality is perfectly normal, acceptable, and a legitimate option for themselves should they choose.

Luke 17:1–2 “Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin."

 

[Ricke]

First off, I would like to invite this man to a Christian service, where the Word of God goes forth. To me this man is just another unsaved sinner. Yes I know he is claiming to be a Christian, not arguing that he thinks he is a Christian.

I've seen first hand what The Mercies of God will do for folks like him. I was a Missionary to the Philippines from 1988-91. I was in one of the largest Pentecostal Churches in the World. This church was totally dedicated they fasted and prayed they went to Church 3 days a week a total of 20 hours every week.
God blessed these devout people. I saw many healings all kinds of deliverance from every addiction you can name, Devils' cast out etc etc. I witnessed this for 3 years. If I had not seen and witnessed it, I would. Be a skeptic.
Now here is something I want to share and what I learned about Homosexuality. In this Church they had 23 FORMER Gay and Lesbian folks Men now Married to Woman, with kids, and if you had never known, you would have thought they were always Heterosexual.... I wanted to know as much as I could so I could someday witness to these people and show them they can be delivered from this. They told me, this is what I wanted to share with all of you, and The Man who posted this thread.

What the Gay and Lesbians have is what they call an Unclean Spirit. We read about this in your Bibles about The rulers of Darkness, Principalities and Powers etc....this refers to Satan's Kingdom on earth. Unclean Spirits inhabit Homosexuals as well as Pedophiles, Prostitutes, and other ungodly Immoral people.

They also taught me these people are not "Born that Way" and helpless. They can be delivered out of their bondage if they want to. This is where consecrated Fasting and prayer is the key to cast out Unclean Spirits I was taught. I talked to every si.glee one of the 23 former Gays and Lesbians at various times over The 3 years, they all told me their personal stories, and showed me pictures some of them who were Transvestites.

This man must first be willing to Repent and surrender himself to the Blood of Jesus. Now sir, if you send me your e-mail address and here is mine [email protected]

I will tell you the Name of this Church, tell who to contact. And tell you how to find them on you tube. Sir, let me say this finally.

God does not anyone to be bound up by The Devil, Jesus is not willing any should perish, but that all should come to Repentance. What do you have to lose if you are skeptical?
You'll know who to contact, you can even talk to now converted Brothers and Sisters who once lived the Same lifestyle. Send me first a personal e-mail on CC then after I respond, send me your e-mail address so I can give you all the Info you need. God Bless...In Jesus Name...

 

[Descyple]

15 responses and 92 views in only 4 hours? Wow, you guys are fast! But seriously, I appreciate all the posts in this thread. Thank you Age of Knowledge and Credo ut Intelligam for your strong and helpful insights. Very informative! And Shard, even though you and I have different views on the role homosexuality should be allowed to play in society, I do appreciate your contributions and sharing your thoughts on the matter. In regards to Ricke's post, were you referring to me Ricke? If you were I am afraid you may have misunderstood my position. I was not stating that gay marriage equality actually is logical, I was trying to demonstrate it is not logical at all. I am against gay marriage. I apologize if my position was not clear enough in my post. Did anyone else misunderstand my main point and my position?

I was hoping that in this particular thread we could zero in on the one fundamental argument the homosexual movement uses to try to win public sentiment and to attain marriage rights; and that is the argument they use in demanding to be treated "equally" with heterosexuals concerning marriage. If you agree with me (or I should say with Thomas Schmidt, since it was his argument I was expounding) that homosexuals actually already have the same marriage right as heterosexuals (that one "right" as being able to marry any adult female not in immediate relation) than their claim of being treated unequally fails.

Simply put, if someone is to claim that heterosexuals have more marriage rights than homosexuals do, then I need to hear what those specific rights are. I have not yet heard them stated by any proponent of homosexuality. The only response I get is the claim that "heterosexuals can marry anyone, but homosexuals can't marry at all." But as I attempted to demonstrate in my original post, heterosexuals are actually extremely limited by law regarding who they can and cannot marry. And the one marriage right heterosexuals do have (as stated above) has always been available to homosexuals as well.

So where then is the inequality that the homosexual movement is decrying? If Schmidt's argument stands (and I believe it does) than the homosexual movement is either knowingly or unknowingly demanding not "equal" rights, but what is referred to in ethics as "super-uber" rights. These are rights that no group in a society possess and then one group stands up and demands that non-existent right for itself. That is precisely what the homosexual movement is doing. When a homosexual man says he wants the right to marry another man and so be equal with heterosexuals, he fails to understand that heterosexuals don't have (nor ever had) the right to marry another man. Therefore the definition of "equality" used by the homosexual movement not only fails logically, it doesn't even make sense. It is in reality an incoherent argument.

I was hoping some of you guys could comment (either pro or con) on this argument against the homosexual's fundamental use of the word "equality" in connection to heterosexual marriage rights.

It is late here in Toronto (12:25am) so I am off to bed. Take care for now and God bless you all.

Your brother in Christ, Matthew

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes. As history has sadly shown.

Well that is my hope too. However, he did not make the concession as an "Oh, I guess you're right" type of thing but more as an "Okay, so who cares?" type of thing. He didn't seem disturbed by the implications of his newly adopted relativism or the fact that he had abandoned his earlier ship of objectivism. And this is what makes the secular relativistic ethic so dangerous. That it can be tossed about so easily and have it's principles of yesterday overturned without any concern.

 

[Descyple]

I think my thread and post may have been misunderstood because of my choice of words for the title "The Logic of Gay Marriage Equality." My purpose was to demonstrate the homosexual movements lack of rationality in their argument for equality. Perhaps it would have been more helpful if I titled this thread "The Misuse of Logic in Gay Marriage Equality." I apologize and will try to be more precise in future posts.

Your brother in Christ, Matthew

 

[Shard]

Alright i see why people think what they do, I just dont think we should be trying to say who people can and cant love. IN the US they at least no the ramifications of what we think about what they are doing. They dont care. And while I will never goes as far as to be an 'activist' and participate in pro-marriage rallies or whatever, I will not vote against it.