At this point the dialog shuts down, but I find that secular arguments tend to re-boot the discussion. I occasionally debate proponents on other forums. To be honest, they have quite a bit of difficulty breaking down the logic in the following post:
Few things represent a lack-of-thinking more than the idea of same-sex marriage. We need to turn down the noise on this issue and look at the facts.
Why is the government in the marriage business?
Does the government care who you “love”?
Would marriage exist if humans reproduced asexually?
The nature of male/female marriage leads directly to the building blocks of a nation just like the cells of a body. Strong families and a productive future citizenry result from a permanent and loving union between one male and one female. If we don’t see this clear connection to our society, we’re just not looking. The very idea that The State should NOT give incentive & recognize a procreative union as unique from other types of human unions boggles the mind.
You will ask; what about infertile couples or couples who do not want children? This question brings a new debate. The debate becomes, should marriage be defined as any man and any woman or only a man and woman willing & able to have children. The question in no way logically justifies same-sex marriage.
You will ask; what about equal rights for all? Many relationships, other than marriages, have tremendous personal significance to those involved. The fact that we do not call them marriages is not evidence of bigotry, but recognition of reality.
Proponents of same-sex marriage insist that marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction; why children? I like to counter with a question of my own; why sex? Suppose two sisters share a household and love each other very much. Why should they not be married if they want? Why discriminate against people because they are not sexually attracted to each other? It’s not fair.
Another question; why the number “two”? Why can’t marriage be any 3 people or any 30 people? I’ve been told this is a slippery slope argument and slippery slope arguments are automatically invalid. So if my kids are playing with matches, and I project that there will be a fire and someone will get hurt, this would be another automatically invalid slippery slope argument.
Then there is the discussion about “What’s it to you?” Let them marry. It does not affect heterosexual marriage in any way. This would be a separate post I think. For the purposes of this post, I’ll say that I prefer my government do things that are intelligible as oppose to unintelligible. What say you?
|Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.|