[PLUG-TALK] Should marriage be open to homosexual couples?

Michael Robinson plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Wed Feb 4 08:00:55 UTC 2009


http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=275906


And the answer is, no.  The strongest argument in favor is
"God is not offended by homosexual sex acts."  Okay, prove that.
But they are born that way!  Oh, are murderers born to be murderers
and are grotesquely obese persons born to overeat?  The they are 
born that way argument seems to be a weak one to me at least.
Murderers are born to be murderers, don't fault them for the way
they were born!  Sorry, murder threatens society and it has to be
prevented.

The Oregonian ran an article on Civil Unions and stated that many
gays and lesbians across the state are not pursuing them.  Is it
because a lot of couples break up and don't want legal entanglements?
Well, the Oregonian claims that many gays and lesbians believe they
can get a marriage license instead in time.

Let's play with the born that way argument, because that seems to
be one that comes up a lot.  If you are homosexual, do you
really want people to say you are that way because you were
born that way?  There is no evidence of a gay gene, keep that in
mind.  What if you identify as a homosexual, but you don't live
a homosexual lifestyle and don't want to?  But you are born that
way, aren't you?

Should marriage be redefined because someone is born identifying
in a homosexual way?  Is homosexuality inborn?  I'd be surprised
if no homosexual would stand up and say, "I'm just like you, I'm not
born differently you discriminating pig!"

What is romance?  Supposedly romance is some right that noone should
be denied, but what's the definition of romance?  Looking at what
romance is points to another argument that some people use to 
promote redefining marriage.  If romance is erotic love alone,
is that enough to go and redefine marriage?  They have erotic
feelings for each other, they should get married!  Stop, is there
any agape love?  Is there love of God and adherence to what God
wants?  If a hormonal urge is enough reason to get married, it's
no wonder there are so many divorces.  Sorry Jill, I didn't
think this through thoroughly before we got married.

So I've played a little with the born that way argument and the
romance argument.  Well, marriage is a civil right isn't it?
Hmm, what's a civil right?  A civil right is something that
every human person has by merit of being a human person.  So
is it a stretch at all to say that it is a civil right to
form relationships with other people of any kind?  But officer,
I have a civil right to assemble with my fellow bank robbing
buddies to enhance our prospects for success!  Sure, but you
are still going to jail sir.  Well, animals aren't human persons
so you can't argue a civil right by the given definition to
marry an animal.  I think with relationships that the other
party has to be willing to relate to you or no amount of
pressure is going to make anything happen, civil right 
notwithstanding.  So, maybe civil rights don't cover 
relationships between people.  Now, one might argue that 
interracial marriage between a man and a woman is a civil 
right.  If the latter statement is accepted, the running 
definition of civil right has to be amended or replaced,
but with what I wonder?  As the bank robber example demonstrates,
adding relationships to the list of civil rights is not so easy.  

Okay so I've played with some of the arguments a bit for
redefining marriage.  Now then, what is the purpose of
marriage?  How can two men or two women bring a child 
into the world in a manner that allows: God to decide
if there will be a new life, what gender the new person
will have, etcetera?  Are test tube babies created by
an act of God or an act of Man?  Hmm, there isn't a
natural way for two men or two women to have children
together.  But but but, isn't marriage understood to
be an institution that produces new children and 
supports their growth?  Ahh, can two men or two women
do a better job of forming and raising a child than a
man and a woman?  Man woman couples have been producing
children for at least 10k years.  Seems to me that two
men or two women are going to need minimum one woman or
one man respectively to produce a baby.  Sounds complicated
to me, a person of the opposite gender becoming
a part of a gay couple temporarily so that reproduction
is semi possible.  It also flies in the face of the tendency
of the law to favor a child's biological parents over
adoptive ones.  Who is most likely to care the most about
a child?  I'd say the child's biological parents.  
Redefining marriage seems complicated and unnecessary to 
me.

Oh, I'm a bigot you say?  I think my civil rights definition
is very generous, but call me what you must.  I can always
just ignore you ;-)




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list