I don’t know why I find it so compelling, this anti-gay strategy of asking scary gotcha questions instead of offering substantive arguments, but I always feel a near-irresistible urge to answer them. Apparently it’s always been this way. This is from one of my first-grade teacher evaluations:
Well, finally Bobby remembers to raise his hand to talk. I was so pleased and then he acquired a new twist. Now when he raises his hand he keeps saying my name until I answer. So we are currently working on that.
Yes, I was that kid (“Mrs. Boyer! Mrs. Boyer! Mrs. Boyer!”) who always had to know the answer.
Well, I found another list of questions, this time from Jason Salamone, who “is a former liberal agnostic, but surrendered to Christ on April 7th, 2011.”
I have a few questions for the pro-homosexual practice crowd and same-sex “marriage” advocates. I have no issues with them attempting to actually answer the following questions, feel free, but I’m also respectfully challenging them to ponder these questions themselves…
I actually like this list, because it’s as if he compiled what our opponents considered their best unanswerable gotchas. Might be handy for us to a set of ready-made responses. He’s got 21 questions, so I’ll do 11 today and the rest in my next post.
To begin:
1.) Why do many homosexual activist groups like GLSEN teach that sexuality is fluid when children and teens claim they like the opposite sex or are not even interested in sex, but when a child or teen says he or she is attracted to the same sex, then sexuality is all of the sudden fixed?
So that’s how it’s going to be: You’re going to invent caricatures and demand we defend them. This a recurring problem for anti-gays who employ the just askin’ strategy. You’re not merely confessing your ignorance — no harm in that; confessing ignorance is the first step to enlightenment — but you reveal your ignorance is less than innocuous by showing off the false things you are determined to “know.”
I’d rather you had asked an honest question, but these three points might help you anyway. First, keep in mind that just because one’s sexuality may change, that doesn’t mean one can choose to change it. As a (very) rough analogy, consider height: it changes throughout one’s life, increasing when one is young and decreasing later in life. That doesn’t mean one can will it to change.
Second, even if some people can change their sexual orientation, that doesn’t mean that most or even many people can.
Finally, please note that apparent changes in one’s sexuality are often changes in one’s sexual awareness. Kids and teens are so often told their sexual feelings are evil, wicked, and abominable, it’s no wonder they submerge these feelings until they can be held down no longer.
(2.) What are the scientifically observable elements of sexuality besides the sexual organs and the associated chemical and hormonal processes?
Odd question. It’s hard to scientifically observe what any part of us is besides our physical bodies and their associated processes. Since science deals chiefly with measurable physical phenomena, it’s a pretty lame gotcha to ask which nonphysical aspects of, well, anything are “scientifically observable.”
I suspect from your later questions you’re trying to set up the notion that there is no objective evidence for “sexual orientation,” but if you do allow science to be science, then we can use a great many techniques to measure physiological reactions to sexual stimuli.
(3.) When you ask the rhetorical question “when did you choose to be straight?,” can you please tell us how does pointing to something that has never been under dispute and what is responsible for our existence (man-woman relationships/marriage) make a positive case for homosexual practice being normal, natural, and healthy?
I don’t even understand the question (“something that has never been under dispute”?). And what gap in your understanding led you to think that When did you choose to be straight? has anything to do with whether being gay is normal, natural, and healthy? Being gay is all those things, of course, but the point of our question is simply to push back on the notion that it’s a choice.
Actually, I prefer a different question: could you choose to feel a passionate sexual attraction to a member of your own sex? That’s a really good one. If you answer no, you’re admitting it’s not a choice. If you answer yes, that opens up a new and intriguing conversation (see my last note to your first question).
(4.) Why is self-evident biology of man (XY) and woman (XX) just a “state of mind,” but homosexual feelings and desires are incapable of being subjected to the self-determination and free will exercise of changing one’s mind?
If you can find someone who says our chromosomal structure is just a state of mind, you can ask them. In the meantime, you might want to explore this.
I’m intrigued, though, by your notion that changing one’s orientation is just a matter of “changing one’s mind.” Now, I don’t hold that every anti-gay person is secretly gay (some people are probably just drawn to the moral laziness of fiercely opposing something that doesn’t tempt them at all; it lets them feel self-righteous without the bother of examining their own character). Still, your phrasing of these questions seems reveal quite a bit about your own relationship with sex and sexuality.
(5.) It is already true that every adult can marry another adult of the opposite sex….can they not? So if every adult person already can marry another adult of the opposite sex, how is not redefining marriage a form of discrimination?
Oo, you got me! Let’s extend this reasoning. Since every person can attend a Christian church, how would outlawing synagogues be a form of discrimination?
Actually, I made a fun little cartoon on that topic a while back.
Basically, though, it comes down to this: giving everyone an equal right to do only what you want them to is not freedom or equality. It’s just discrimination with you in charge of who gets discriminated against.
(6.) If homosexuality is about love and not about sex, why can’t any two or more adults who claim to love each other get the same legal marriage benefits that same sex couples will get via legalizing homosexual/genderless “marriage?”
Who said homosexuality is not about sex? It’s about sex. It’s about love. It’s about a great many things. Rephrase the question to take out your opening caricature and get back to me.
(7.) Why do liberals and homosexual advocates commit what is called the “taxi-cab fallacy?” Why do they use faulty logic to get what they want, but will then avoid taking their ideology to its logical end? Isn’t granting marriage to any and all adult relationships the logical end of taking the “marriage is only about adults and their love” ideology to its logical end? If the homosexual activist approves of two brothers or two sisters having sex and/or getting married, aren’t they revealing to the world that they themselves have no moral standards? And if they do NOT approve, doesn’t that make them what they often accuse Christians of being….complete hypocrites?
I’m going to have to break this up into bits.
Why do liberals and homosexual advocates commit what is called the “taxi-cab fallacy?” Why do they use faulty logic to get what they want, but will then avoid taking their ideology to its logical end?
I doubt your ability to identify our “faulty logic” or its “logical end,” given that you don’t even seem to know that our logic is, clinging instead to caricatures and straw men.
Isn’t granting marriage to any and all adult relationships the logical end of taking the “marriage is only about adults and their love” ideology to its logical end?
Do you know anyone who says marriage is “only about adults”? In any case, this shows up how lazy your just askin’ strategy is. You haven’t made a case that even your caricature of our logic leads the end you’ve named. Basically, you’re asking us to refute an argument you haven’t made.
If the homosexual activist approves of two brothers or two sisters having sex and/or getting married, aren’t they revealing to the world that they themselves have no moral standards?
No, of course not. This is an odd and tiresome strategy commonly used by your side. You assume that because someone disagrees with you on one moral issue then they must have no moral standards at all. But there’s no necessary inconsistency between condoning consensual incest and also denouncing murder, theft, rape, molestation, and other coercive acts. You should be able to see that regardless of your own personal stance on incest.
And if they do NOT approve, doesn’t that make them what they often accuse Christians of being….complete hypocrites?
How so? Once again, you’re asking us to refute an argument you haven’t made. I’ll give you a head start. Since a key component of our argument is that bans on same-sex marriage effectively exclude gay people from meaningful marriages, the only way to extend the argument to cover incestuous couples is show there are people out there who can only feel romantic and sexual for family members. Good luck with that.
(8.) When two women claim, via homosexual “marriage,” that they are capable of having the same relationship as a man and woman do, does that not imply that every man’s contribution to relationships, marriage, and family is replaceable and unnecessary? Is that not a form of discrimination against men, and the fatherhood only men can provide, based on their biological sex?
No.
Oh all, right, I’ll address yet another argument you haven’t really made. When two elderly people marry, is that a form of discrimination against young people?
The real problem here is your assumption that there are things that only a man can provide. I’ll grant you sperm (that didn’t come out quite right) but not much else. When it comes to raising kids, men can mother (and women can father). And when it comes relationships, my choice of spouse ends up discriminating against all other people in the world. And so does yours. But that’s not the sort of freedom-destroying insidious force most people have in mind when they denounce discrimination.
No, actually, it is bans on same-sex marriage that force us to discriminate against one gender in favor of another, that take away our freedom not to discriminate based on gender.
Wow, put it like that, and your argument comes down to: Forcing people to discriminate is the only way to prevent discrimination. Orwell would be so proud.
(9.) When two men claim, via homosexual “marriage” that their relationship is just as much a relationship or marriage as a man-woman committed relationship, does that not implicitly dismiss any contribution of every woman, thus also claiming women are not essential to relationships, marriage, and family? Is that not a form of discrimination against women, and the motherhood only women can provide, based on their biological sex?
Yeah, okay, see question 8.
(10.) Can you also please tell us how redefining marriage to make biological parenting optional and unnecessary won’t encourage more instances of this form of discrimination?
We’ve already disposed of your discrimination argument.
Also, you act as if this is somehow new, but “biological parenting” has always been “optional and unnecessary” for married couples. Some couples choose not to procreate; we don’t automatically divorce them. Some couples cannot procreate; we do not forbid them to marry, even when it’s obvious due to age.
In fact, there’s only one circumstances I can think of where there’s a requirement about biological parenting, and that’s when first cousins marry. Some states allow that only when the cousins can prove they cannot procreate.
Though that really messes up your whole question, doesn’t it.
(11.)…and as a result, won’t DELIBERATELY deprive children their right to be raised by both a loving mother and father?
I could point out that banning same-sex marriage deprives children of their right to be raised by two loving moms or two loving dads. You’d likely throw up your hands and say, There is no such right!, but that just begs the question of where you found that right to a mom and dad. You might argue that the bio-mom-dad structure is better than two moms or two dads, but we know you can’t prove that, no matter how much money you pour into rigged, poorly-designed studies.
That’s it for today. We can pick up with #12 next time.