This is part 2 of my answers to questions posed by Jason Salamone, who “is a former liberal agnostic, but surrendered to Christ on April 7th, 2011.” You can find part 1 here. It covered his first 11 questions, so let’s pick up with #12. (And I’m afraid this time I wasn’t able to hold back the snark he provokes as we get closer to the end.)
(12.) Not every marriage produces children, but every child has a biological mother and father. By redefining marriage to mean that those biological connections as unnecessary, are we not teaching society that children are commodities for adult desires, and that marriage is not about the children’s needs?
I don’t know what you’re asking. You worry those biological connections are unnecessary to…what? To marriage? But of course, you already severed any necessary connection between procreation and marriage by letting the elderly marry, or by (in some states) only allowing first cousins to marry if they can’t procreate.
Or do you worry these biological connections would be thought unnecessary to raising children? I’d point out this would not be an argument against same-sex marriage, but against same-sex adoption. Or adoption in general, actually. This is awfully tricky territory for you to navigate. Jennifer Roback Morse already attempted a better, more thorough exploration of this and fell flat on her kiester. Check it out here; scroll halfway down the page. Spoiler: you’ll see every “biological children” argument against marriage equality is also an argument against adoption in general.
By the way, I just realized I’m being too easy on you by (yet again) refuting an argument you haven’t bothered to flesh out. Can you explain why a same-sex couple rearranging their entire existence to create a home for an adoptive child sends the message that marriage is not about children’s needs? Especially when just about every court decision in favor of marriage equality highlights the importance of marriage for the children of same-sex couples?
Yeah, I didn’t think this through enough before answering, and now that I have, it’s clear you haven’t thought this through at all.
(13.) Homosexual activists like to point to man-woman dysfunctional marriages, rampant divorce, and abusive man-woman parents. How does that argument justify homosexual practice and redefining marriage?
Oh, come on. This just makes you look bad. You can only be asking this out of either rhetorical dishonesty or such an aversion to gay people that it interferes with your ability to reason (that’s why we call homophobia a psychological disorder). No one thinks that rampant divorce is a reason to have gay sex. Here’s how this conversation actually goes:
Your side: Look at that terrible homosexual! He proves we shouldn’t permit same-sex parenting or marriage.
Us: Here’s an example of a terrible heterosexual. By your reasoning, we shouldn’t allow opposite-sex parenting or adoption.
Your side: How does that bad heterosexual justify same-sex marriage???
In other words, we’re not pointing out opposite-sex abuses to make a case for marriage. We’re trying to point out the bigoted fallacy in your side’s argument against us (and yes, smearing an entire group by the actions of a few members is bigotry, especially when you don’t do the same thing to your own group).
(14.) If it is true that there is an epidemic of victimization and violent persecution of people with homosexual inclinations and behavior, how does that justify homosexual practice and redefining marriage?
Again…what? Who exactly is saying that persecution of gays means that people should have gay sex? Or get gay married? I think you once again have misunderstood the issue.
The fact is that certain groups have a history of stigmatization and legistlatively-imposed oppression. Our court system recognized this generations ago and decided it might be a good idea — a compassionate, prudent idea — to subject laws affecting those groups to a higher standard of scrutiny. This is a general legal principle, not something specific to gays. You can learn more about it here.
(15.) If you’re only attracted to one sex and not the other, you are admitting that there is a difference between male and female. While this truth is self-evident, same sex “marriage advocates imply that there is really no difference between the two sexes when it comes to parenting. So how can you acknowledge there’s a difference between the sexes when it comes to your romantic and sexual desires, but not when it comes to child-bearing and child-rearing?
Now you’re just being creepy. Having sex with someone is different from parenting someone. My god, you must know that. What did I say moments ago? You can only be asking this out of either rhetorical dishonesty or such an aversion to gay people that it interferes with your ability to reason. I’ll double down on that here.
(16.) Should the burden of proof be on the people who believe that a loving home with a mother and father is best for children, or should it be on the people who believe that a “loving” home that DELIBERATELY denies a child of either a mother or father is best for children?
In a free country, the burden of proof is on those who would deny freedom. Always. In the U.S., protecting children from harm is one of the most compelling reasons for restricting the freedom of adults, but we generally require that harm, or at least a reasonable risk of harm, be proven first. And we know that your side has failed miserably at this.
(17.) Does anybody remember when people with homosexual attractions were taken from their homeland in massive numbers, sold like property, systematically dehumanized, forced to sit in the back of the bus, forced to use separate water fountains and bathrooms, attacked with fire hoses, forced to work in fields or be beaten/killed with impunity, denied their right to vote, systematically segregated by force of law and denied services, and tortured & lynched in daylight public spectacles with the whole town turning out, women and children included, to cheer it on, take body parts as souvenirs, and pose for pictures, smiling next to the remains. Does anybody remember that? So the one man and one woman marriage requirement in marriage licensing are JUST LIKE what the Loving v. Virginia case struck down? Is melanin a feeling like homosexual attraction? That is, since homosexual attractions when acted out results in kissing, touching, and sexual behavior, can you please tell us what black skin color results in when acted out?
How proud you are of your ignorance. How self-righteously you drag it out and parade it for all to see. Your side speaks of hating the sin but loving the sinner, but do you care about gay people at all? Or truth? Gays and lesbians have been beaten, castrated, murdered, and lobotomized. We’ve been imprisoned, forbidden to congregate in public, and banned from federal employment. And much of that hasn’t been merely the actions of a lawless few, but official government policy. If you genuinely cared about the people you consider sinners, you would know this and not spout such uncaring nonsense.
And by the way, no one says Loving v. Virginia is “JUST LIKE” banning same-sex marriage. We’re saying the reasoning and precedent apply. As for what skin color looks like “when acted out,” sometimes it looks like interracial marriage and the resulting children, whom your ideological forebears regarded as abominations, or at least tragic mistakes, to be prevented by banning some kinds of marriage.
(18.) I understand that “sexual orientation” refers to romantic or sexual preference. So what scientific method is used to show that “sexual orientation” is real? That is, what is the empirical evidence that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, has its own DNA, that sexual attraction never fluctuates, and homosexuality can easily be measured? Where is “sexual orientation” located? On the liver? The earlobe? The pancreas? If we have a “sexual orientation” why can’t doctors identify our “sexual orientation” when we are born? Do I get it at Walmart in a bucket? Can I get prescription shots of it at my local pharmacy? And does proof of the existence of “sexual orientation” mean that the behavior that flows from it, should be affirmed, encouraged? If “sexual orientation” exists, can you please show me a picture of one? If it is invisible, what kind of instrument do you use to measure it? Electricity is measured by voltage meters. Thoughts can be measured with lie detector devices, and with medical equipment. Meteorologists have instruments to measure wind. Where’s the MRI and/or CAT scan data for “sexual orientation?”
Now you’re just ranting. Please never confuse overblown rhetoric for actual argument. And so much for your oh-so-earnest declaration that “I’m also respectfully challenging them to ponder these questions.” There’s no respect here. That’s obviously a lie.
Meanwhile, what fun you’d have had with the Declaration of Independence: “What is this pursuit of ‘happiness‘? Where be it located? Canst thou acquire it in a bucket? Apply it as a salve? Be it uniform across all souls? Prithee, hast thou a drawing?” Why, if you were around in 1776, you could have stopped the Revolution! (See, I wisely never promised to be respectful of arguments that don’t deserve it.)
You seem to have a greater fetish for science than most atheists. Sexual orientation is something we perceive through direct experience. It’s like color: I couldn’t be sure my experience of color is the same as yours, and we had little scientific understanding of it before we discovered wavelengths, but anyone with typical vision knew color existed because, damn, there it is!
Furthermore, it’s hilarious that you ask about MRIs. If you really sought answers, you’d have easily discovered studies like this one, which contain sentences full of really hard words, such as:
As compared to viewing sexually neutral videos, viewing erotic videos led to a brain activation pattern characteristic for sexual arousal in both groups only when subjects were viewing videos of their respective sexual orientation. Particularly, activation in the hypothalamus, a key brain area in sexual function, was correlated with sexual arousal. Conversely, when viewing videos opposite to their sexual orientation both groups showed absent hypothalamic activation.
If you want to avoid future embarrassment, you might want to try this. Though I’m beginning to suspect it may be an insoluble problem for you.
(19.) Can you really not see you have placed blind faith into something very abstract and highly ambiguous? Can you really not see that “sexual orientation” is a concept that takes more faith than logic and reason to believe in? Can you not see that “sexual orientation” is essentially a magic skydaddy?
We just demolished the basis of this question. What’s worse, though, is that we know even you don’t believe what you’re saying. Just a few hundred words earlier you wrote:
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…
So you’re acknowledging the existence of sexual orientation right there, even saying it’s beyond dispute.
(20.) Keeping the above questions in mind, how is the homosexualist worldview not a selfish and self-defeating worldview?
We’ve shown your above questions are nonsense. And I don’t even know what the “homosexualist worldview” is. But if it were “selfish and self-defeating” we wouldn’t be debating same-sex marriage. Selfish people don’t expend time and money fighting for the right to commit to another person the way we have. And as I’ve written before, we only ask for the rights because we’ve already accepted the responsibilities.
(21.) Finally, if anybody bothers to read articles with comment sections from pro-homosexual sites, you’ll notice Christians and others who disagree with homosexual practice and redefining marriage rarely to never post comments under the articles on their sites. The fact that almost every conservative Christian site receives an onslaught of attacks (ad hominems, straw man, non-sequiturs, name-calling, etc.) on their comment sections and Facebook threads, how does that not show the foundation for their worldview is on shaky ground? How does that not reveal that they are the ones with a lot to prove, even though they disingenuously act as if the burden of proof is on that which has never been under dispute?
You know, I started compiling some hateful, disgusting, anti-gay comments that have appeared on my own website and on my youtube channel. I thought about recapping all the straw men and non sequiturs in your own piece. And I considered going into detail about the fact that the website that published your column has now twice had to withdraw articles when it realized the authors want gays put to death.
But then I thought: How petty. Are we really going to critique each other based on the rudeness of Internet commenters? Internet commenters? That’s like denouncing opera because you don’t like Justin Bieber. Only a person whose worldview is on shaky ground, a person who knows he can’t even begin to meet a burden of real and substantive proof, would resort to such an unintentionally hilarious gambit.
And that, I think, pretty much says it all.