The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 6 – The Worst Argument

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 6 – The Worst Argument Against Same-sex Marriage:

Homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Bell-shaped curves fill our world. A few folk are mentally retarded, a few are geniuses and most of us are ordinary, scattered across a bell-shaped curve for intelligence. A certain percentage of the world has Down’s Syndrome, cerebral-palsy, red hair and are left-handed. It is what it is. My genetic code made me short, a little bit smart, and hard-wired straight. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what women find attractive about men. We are smelly, loud, obnoxious, aggressive, preditory and hairy. Unattractive! It is all in the wiring. One of my close friends is gay. He is neither flamboyant nor promiscuous, and has been with his partner for 30 years. His orientation was never about choice. It is simply in the wiring. Just as I could have never chosen an attraction to men, he has simply never found women of any interest whatsoever. The homosexual trait has existed for all of recorded history. Regardless of ethnicity, religion, or country, it is a genetic trait that is evenly distributed throughout all societies on Earth. So far all of our efforts to change homosexuals to heterosexuals have been clinical failures.

The crux is homosexuality (best guess estimates range from 2% to 20% of the population) is no more deviant than being a ginger (1-2% of the population and very much persecuted in the U.K.) or left-handed (about 10% of the population – and think on this: the word “sinister” finds its Latin roots in left-handedness). Heterosexuals are simply hardwired to respond negatively to homosexual sex acts. The point of being human is the ability to rise above our visceral instincts. If you want an example of deviant behavior you should consider swingers, bondage, or men who walk around in women’s underwear. Homosexuals are pretty common, ordinary even, in the grand scheme of things. Ordinary is pretty much the opposite of deviant.

Conclusion to the 6 part series

Objective examination of this series of arguments is the method I used to come to my conclusion quite some time ago. My personal answer was actually a relief at the end, because I was never comfortable with the position ingrained in me by society at large, including the Pride movement… much to that movement’s shame. Fear and hatred cripple our human experience even more than treating one another as mere objects of use. Love and commitment, valuing the sum of our parts rather than just the parts themselves, only heal that same human experience. Adding same-sex marriages to our civil law will not detract from society at large, as long as that same society also respects every American’s right to freedom of religion as designed and guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. Agree to disagree, and then live and let live.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 5 – The Best Argument

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 5 – The Best Argument Against Same-sex Marriage:

If secular society approves same-sex marriage, homosexuals will seek to force America’s religious to approve of same-sex marriages and participate in same-sex weddings.

Since Roe v. Wade, America’s pro-abortion leaders, disgusting folks like NARAL, have attempted to force abortion and contraceptives on America’s religious citizens and healthcare organizations. Since the introduction of Plan B, the emergency contraceptive and abortifacient, into the market I have personally been verbally attacked by such people in my own work place simply because I refused to talk to them about it. They knew I could do little to defend myself without getting fired, and heaped on the abuse while bystanders gawked at their boorish behavior.

The same-sex marriage controversy is no different. Here in Oregon, in direct violation of the Oregon Constitution, Attorney General Ellen F. Roseblum destroyed one of Portland’s only Christian bakeries because they refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake for a lesbian couple. It is not a theoretical fear. These fights between secular rights and religious conscience are being fought in America’s legal system every day.

Here is a black and white example. I enjoy coffee, tea, wine, and pulled pork, and am Catholic. Both the Mormons and the Muslims believe this combination puts my very soul at risk of damnation, no different than if I were a flamboyant gay man. Thanks to the Constitution, they have no legal right to force me to convert to their religious way of thinking, and I have no legal right to force them to serve coffee and pulled-pork sandwiches at their food cart in downtown Portland. That is the price and promise of living in America… at least it used to be.

If the LGBT community is not willing to respect religious values of people they disagree with, they will never garner those people’s support. Ever. I realize that Fred Phelps was a rotten Christian, but turnabout is not fair play, unless the play was fair to begin with. If you do not like someone’s religious view, all you can do is present your best case and leave them to their conscience. That is the beauty of America, and why I would never move to the UAE. Homosexuals do not have the right to force their lifestyle on anyone any more than Christians (or Muslims) have the right to force homosexuals to be straight. In the long run, while it might feel good to screw the Christian in the moment, it is a losing strategy. Giving people a legitimate reason to hate you always is. Just ask Fred Phelps.

NYT Journalist, Sabrina Tavernise, Misses the Boat on Looming Narcotic Restrictions by the DEA

In Move to Curb Drug Abuse, D.E.A. Tightens Rule on Widely Prescribed Painkiller –

Sabrina Tavernise has missed the boat so many times I am surprised she has not fallen off the pier and ruined her pantsuit. In her recent article documenting the upcoming change in schedule for the narcotic hydrocodone, Tavernise notes that since the late 1990s “the number of Americans who die from prescription drug overdose have more than tripled,” without stopping to ask, “Why?” After all, the heart of the issue is the question, “Why?” What happened in the late 1990s that set off this rapid rise in the abuse of prescription controlled substances? It is not just narcotics, either. There has also been a rapid rise in the use and abuse of prescription amphetamines over the last 20 years, as well as a massive increase in our country’s dependence on psychotropic drugs for conditions like depression, anxiety and insomnia. There is a pill for everything in America, and Americans are lining up around the block to get a piece of that action.

The answer lies largely in specific government actions. There was a time when it was illegal for drug manufacturers to advertise directly to the common man. It was a sensible law, because the common man simply does not have the level of education to know when and what drug therapies are appropriate. Unfortunately, along came the lobbyists, PACs and campaign donors who threw a lot of money at politicians to change the rules. Now drug manufacturers can go directly to the people with the magical thinking of advertising, convincing America it needs more drugs. Now Joe Citizen walks into the doctor’s office and demands that new drug for insomnia he saw on a 2AM advertisement. Joe gets his wish, and then gets hooked on an addictive sedative. Here is an interesting tidbit. Despite the massive increase in people on anti-depressive drugs over the last twenty-five years, America’s suicide rate has hardly budged. We are spending our money and taking the drugs, yet are no better off than we were before.

As for the massive increase in narcotic use since the late 1990s, you can get that story of specific, targeted government action right here.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 4 – Moral Arguments

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 4 – Moral Arguments:

Same-sex marriage violates Natural Law.

Natural Law is the sense of right and wrong and of mutual obligation that is natural to mankind, as distinguished from the revealed law of God and the codified laws of men. Natural Laws are not to be confused with cultural norms, like women must wear burkas and cannot wear pants. Natural Law is the use of reason to create rules of behavior so fundamental that they are universal.

The idea here is that because same-sex marriage has been universally shunned by pretty much every society all through history, it must violate Natural Law. While this is a legitimate observation, we still need the logic proof. The logical series of IF, THEN statements that prove the theory. I can easily do this for other socially explosive issues like abortion and inter-racial marriage, but can it be done in the case of same-sex marriage?

For instance, life begins at conception, therefore abortion is murder. That is a short, easy logic proof that states abortion violates Natural Law (a side note – The logic proof that “murder is wrong” is significantly longer and harder to work out than the one that defines abortion as murder). The proof is airtight, and it has never been debunked by any abortion advocate. Unfortunately, I have never seen a comparable series of logical, IF, THEN statements proving homosexuality is a violation of Natural Law. Saying it is disgusting hardly proves the point.

Look at it this way, one of the very fundamental natural laws is that every person has the right to self-determination. Therefore any relationship any person is forced to enter without willing consent is a violation of Natural Law. That is why slavery is a violation of Natural Law. Animals cannot consent to marriage, that is why bestiality is a violation of Natural Law. Children do not have the maturity to consent to carnal relations, that is why pedophilia is a violation of Natural Law. Any arranged marriage between a man and a woman, one where one or both parties do not willingly consent to the marriage, is a violation of Natural Law. I am guessing that a significant number of heterosexual marriages throughout history, while perfectly legal according to civil law and accepted by religious law, fall into this category. Do consensual, same-sex marriages fall into this category?

God says homosexuality is hateful to the human body.

The Christian Bible, examined from a scientific point of view, reads like an ancient CDC manual. It prescribes all kinds of dos and don’ts that promote a healthy, stable society. Many of the rules of antiquity, like the ban on pork, are no longer relevant, while many of the rules, like the ban on adultery and child abuse, are as relevant as ever. If you take the time to read Leviticus, you will find it is not nearly as ridiculous as it sounds when you look at the rules through the lens of science and in the context of the society of the time. Our ancestors were entirely ignorant of germ theory and could not have known that having sex with animals could lead to trans-species disease transmission that could destroy the entire society, so God simply banned it without getting too far into the weeds.

Back in the day homosexuality obviously existed, just as it does today. Why was it banned back then, and is that ban still necessary today? Most modern Christians eat pork and use birth control without a second thought. Most modern Christians accept divorce and remarriage. About 27% of American Christians have been divorced at least one time. Most modern Christians still hold that abortion is murder and that life begins at conception. This means that while some rules remain fixed, some rules have flexed in our modern society. Nobody gets stoned to death in Christendom anymore, even though it is a biblically prescribed punishment, and we certainly do not espouse the burning of members of Wicca… Fred Phelps not withstanding.

This begs the question, will a monogamous, same-sex marriage be harmful to the body? While promiscuity spreads sexually transmitted diseases among both homosexual and heterosexual populations, there does not seem to be any real health consequences of any sort to monogamous same-sex couples. If homosexuality is truly hateful to the body, science should be able to quantify it, yet it cannot.

Same-sex marriage validates the homosexual lifestyle.

What most consider the “homosexual lifestyle,” debauchery and all, is already legal. Nobody goes to jail for sodomy anymore, and any sheriff who thinks otherwise will get publicly tarred and feathered. Debauchery and flamboyancy, whether homosexual or heterosexual, while unsavory to many, are no longer illegal. Acknowledging same-sex marriage actually creates a new homosexual lifestyle instead validating the old. This new life-style, by its very nature, trends to the conservative, not the progressive. From a conservative point of view, allowing same-sex marriage can only introduce conservative values, such as fidelity, in a previously progressive stronghold. It will also introduce the trials and tribulations of divorce into that community.

Homosexuality is a moral wrong and we should not validate it by making it a civil right.

Moral wrongs are generally determined by Natural Law and Religious Law. Civil law determines civil wrongs. There are many things I believe are moral wrongs that are perfectly legal, or quasi-legal under civil law. There are many things illegal under civil law, that I believe are morally neutral or morally just. It is the double edge sword of living in America. I cannot force my moral code on others, though I believe it would improve society, and no one can force their moral code on me. In theory, anyway. The secular legalization of same-sex marriage in civil law does not make it morally right anymore than legalizing adultery, promiscuity, marijuana use or abortion make these things morally right; four things I consider devastating to our society. I must be clear here, I am not saying same-sex marriage is of the same moral character as these four. I cannot find the logic proof that allows me to define same-sex marriage as a moral wrong in the first place. My point is that making something legal or illegal in civil law in no way validates its moral standing. Life begins at conception, no matter what SCOTUS says.

If we change the legal definition of marriage, it will lead to incestuous, bestial and polygamous marriages.

This is a false slippery slope argument. The single, fundamental assumption about any marriage is that it will have a carnal, sexual side. The fundamental reason we ban incestuous relations is the increased risk for genetic deformities. That is why these relationships are taboo. Fake marriages, say ones designed to provide a foreigner citizenship, or to manipulate the tax system, are already on tenuous legal grounds. This makes the argument that same-sex marriage will allow a father to marry his daughter and two brothers to marry each other simply to avoid inheritance taxes really flimsy. Genetic deformities are not the foundation for the argument against same-sex marriage.

The fundamental reason we ban bestiality is disease transmission. Animals also lack the ability to consent, and are legally possessions, not individuals with human rights. Intra-species disease transmission is not the reason why same-sex marriage is banned.

The study of polygamous households have demonstrated substantial weaknesses compared to monogamous households. The wives and children are all rivals for the man’s attention. If one man takes all the available wives, that tends to make the remaining bachelors a bit testy. Jealousy is a fundamental of human nature. We are not really built for plural relationships. Monogamy is much more in line with Natural Law then polygamy. Add to this that males and females are born in approximately a 1:1 ratio, and polygamy simply does not add up. Our ban on polygamy is for different reasons than our ban on same-sex marriage.

Using this slippery slope argument basically is accusing same-sex couples of introducing intra-species diseases into the population, creating complex, soap opera like family discord, and a desire to commit tax fraud. Logic proofs must work backwards as well and forwards, and this argument fails miserably.

More Middle-Aged Adults Hospitalized for Drug-Related Suicide Attempts

More Middle-Aged Adults Hospitalized for Drug-Related Suicide Attempts.

It looks like, despite what Sabrina Tavernise and Maxine Bernstein preach, that suicide is really a mental health issue and does not have anything to do with firearms.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 3 – Socio-economic Arguments

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 3 – Socio-economic Arguments:

Same-sex couples can already have a marriage ceremony and then meet with a family planning attorney to address most legal issues, so they do not need government approval.

That is true. A good family planning attorney can overcome many of the objections raised by same-sex couples. Also, a marriage is only as good as the people entering the contract. Government recognition does nothing to improve a marriage’s chance of success. Heterosexual couples also have the option of bypassing the government and simply going the spiritual route. This actually has some significant benefits, especially when it comes to income taxes, qualifying for government welfare entitlements, and divorce. However, a government-licensed marriage does come with a lot of financial and social perks, and most heterosexual couples eventually want those in pocket. So do many same-sex couples.

Homosexuals really only want the financial rights that go with a government sanctioned marriage.

Well, yes, they do. But it is the government who has injected financial incentives and penalties into the marriage contract. To say that same-sex couples had utterly no desire to enjoy the spiritual benefits and responsibilities that come from marriage before the U.S. Government started adding monetized benefits to marriage is really quite dehumanizing, as though they are not capable of love. It is the government that created this dynamic. If we were able to remove that dynamic, remove all monetized benefits and penalties that are legislated into heterosexual marriage, I suspect the drive for secular recognition of same-sex marriage would hardly lessen. Frankly, there will never be a test to this theory. Uncle Sam will never give up control of the marriage contract. Without a valid test, it cannot be a proof. The only proof available is observational science. We can see that some homosexuals want to marry badly enough that they will marry outside of civil law and forgo the perks of a government license.

Marriage’s primary purpose is to promote the common good. Same-sex marriage does not promote the common good.

Yes, traditional, healthy marriages stabilize all societies. Families provide structure and create order and cooperation amid anarchy and chaos. However, there is no evidence that same-sex marriage will destabilize the common good. How can there be? It has never been tried. I can make solid arguments using studies, statistics, and charts and graphs that polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, promiscuity, adultery, having children out-of-wedlock, no-fault divorce and couples who shack-up for convenience have a negative impact on society, but cannot point to any social degradation brought about by a same-sex couple who enter into a marriage contract. Most people who marry take the contract pretty seriously, at least at first. My hunch is that by allowing same-sex couples to marry, there will be a statistical decrease in promiscuity among that group, just as there is with traditional marriage. That just might promote the common good. It is worth considering.

Same-sex marriage denies children access to a mother and a father.

Currently it is legal for homosexuals to adopt and have biological children through various circumstances. I do agree that children benefit most from having a mother and father who are married and are not bat-shit crazy, abusive, drug addled, welfare recipients. In a perfect world, all children would be raised in idyllic settings. Children really do need a good mother and a good father, but that is not the society we live in. This is just a guess, but I suspect that there are more children being raised today by crack-whores than by same-sex couples. I apologize for getting profane. Before we use children as a shield against same-sex marriage, we need to actually assess if and how it will change anything, since homosexuals already raise children, and often provide a superior setting over any number of other childhood experiences.

Same-sex marriage is the leading edge of a sexual/moral revolution.

While the sexual revolution has been instrumental in allowing homosexuals to come out of the shadows and publicly express the truth of who they are, open acceptance of homosexuality is actually the trailing edge of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution’s leading edge has been the devaluation of marriage as the institution of carnal knowledge and procreation, the open access to effective birth-control, the progressing normalcy of children being born out-of-wedlock, and the open access to abortion that occurred over the past fifty years. Having homosexuals reject promiscuity and debauchery in favor of entering into a committed marriage contract is actually counter to the mores of the sexual revolution. At least the way I understand it. The whole sexual revolution has been about reducing all persons to merely sexual objects, things that you can buy, sell, use and discard at whim. The human marriage experience, even when it fails, is a spiritual commitment that transcends sexual gratification.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 2 – Historical Arguments

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 2 – Historical Arguments:

In human history no society has ever allowed homosexual marriage, therefore it should remain one man, one woman.

Observationally, this is essentially true. Humanity has always had pockets of society that approve of plural marriage and incestuous marriage, but not same-sex marriage. Some societies throughout history have tolerated and even somewhat promoted homosexuality, but never sanctioned traditional marriage for same-sex partners. However, observation, while an extremely important part of the scientific method, is not reason. Observation does not answer why, and it lumps those societies that have been relatively tolerant of homosexuality together with those that are very intolerant, without attempting to understand the differences. This very argument was used in the 18th and 19th centuries as a justification to continue the institution of slavery. We need more than observational science if we are to deny rights to a perennial segment of society. We need a logical proof.

Marriage is an institution designed specifically for the generation of children.

Historically this is essentially true, although it is not like there actually was a design team out there that drew up some sort of “marriage plan” and then passed that design around the globe 15,000 years ago so everyone could be on the same page. Still, marriage is the traditional context in which society generates families, especially in the major religions.

However, socially, in a world of over seven billion people, the need to go forth and multiply has come to an end. We have successfully fulfilled that mandate. Humanity has gone forth and multiplied, and now a lot of married folk are choosing to limit the number of children they have, or simply not have them at all. These marriages remain just as legally valid as the couple that has eight or ten children. Procreation is no longer the sole purpose of marriage. In that context, even though the fundamental purpose of sex is reproduction, what is the social difference between a childless, monogamous, committed same-sex couple and a childless, monogamous, committed heterosexual couple? There is no legal requirement that a marriage produce children.

Some religions may teach this as a moral wrong, including my own Catholic faith, but have yet to provide the logic proof to back up the argument. Even Pope John Paul II’s fundamental argument has a logic gap that ruins his proof, and he was as smart as they get. Also consider the number of children born out-of-wedlock. Not good. Not illegal.

When put to a public vote, the public always votes against allowing same-sex marriage.

This is a fairly strong argument under most circumstances. In general, societies that are truly democratic are more peaceful and prosperous than those where a central power dictates to the majority and minority without regard to the will of the people. However there are many issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, national health care and gender reassignment, where the government either ignores or overrides the will of the people. I am not saying it is right or wrong to ignore the rule of the majority, only that using the “will of the people” argument is not valid because the government already ignores the “will of the people” much of the time, and sometimes the will of the majority is to persecute the minority. Islam is its own worst enemy in this regard. Since the “will of the people” argument has so many exceptions, it cannot be used as a valid rationale.