A post over at Right Libertarian had some excellent responses to a pro-same-sex-marriage piece. The author didn’t address the religious arguments the pro-SSM person used, so I took a shot at it. Here’s a link to the original post.
– 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
– 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
– 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
– 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
I list them that way to highlight that it isn’t just the “few” verses addressing homosexual behavior (as if what God says doesn’t count until He says it X times).
The Bible, that ancient book written by sheep herders and religious zealots, does indeed condemn homosexuality.
Note how they think they can completely dismiss the word of God with one fallacious sound bite. I’ll give them credit for this, though: At least they see that the Bible does condemn the behavior as sinful. Many Christians (the embarrassingly poorly informed and confused kind) and “Christians” (the fake kind) will try to spin the verses to justify homosexual behavior and oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.”
whatever Paul said on homosexuality is all that matters (ignoring the fact that Jesus said nothing about it)
They use the argument from silence (Jesus didn’t mention child abuse or wife-beating, but presumably we can safely speak against those). He did say marriage was designed by God for one man and one woman, forever.
Paul hates the gays.
This is where you ask them what passages they are referring to and how they came to that conclusion. Expect silence and then a change of subject.
Then refer them to Romans 1. In one of the most “big picture” books of the Bible, Paul notes how people suppress the truth of God in righteousness by ignoring his existence — even though He has made it plan to them — and that God has then given them over to their sinful desires. Then he gives exhibit A: A clear explanation how men and women will abandon their natural functions to have homosexual sex. It should be noted that while that was Paul’s most extreme example, he then gives a laundry list of ways that we all rebel (i.e., he wasn’t just picking on the LGBTQ folks).
Paul addresses this indirectly throughout his letters (all commands about parenting and marriage involve one man / one woman marriages)
The point is, the Bible is a pick and choose smorgasbord of random commands, and to claim that we should legislate based on it is preposterous.
I only use biblical arguments when discussing this with self-proclaimed Christians. I don’t use it for public policy debates with non-believers.
9. Gay’s are icky!
I’ve seen the “ick factor” argument used more by the promoters of “gay marriage” than by its opponents. It is clever on their part to avoid defending some inconvenient problems with their position.
Gay sex is indeed icky. There is a reason people spend billions on toilet paper, diapers, wipes, etc.: People like to keep feces either inside their body (temporarily) or as far away from it as possible. So if someone could force a straight person to have anal sex, I’d expect the straight person would not only want to use a condom but would beg for multiple full body condoms.
HIV and syphilis rates that are over forty times the average are also icky, but that factoid from the CDC is politically incorrect. Therefore, you don’t hear a lot about it — unless you propose to cut funding for these non-gay diseases, in which case you are an awful homophobe.
Those aren’t the reasons to oppose SSM, but they are perfectly valid topics when discussing the LGBTQ agenda.
“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.“ Straight from the horse’s mouth. Faith is based on nothing. By the transitive properties of common sense, arguments from faith are based on nothing.
Another quote from someone who hasn’t studied the Bible. Why didn’t the author reference the 13 Gospel presentations from the book of Acts, or 1 Peter 3:15, or many other passages, which all rely on arguments from reason and evidence? It is a classic case of reading a verse out of context. Juries don’t see the crime in progress, but they can gain assurance from the evidence — just like Christians do.
It really doesn’t. Adam married Eve, so, sure, the first couple out the gate was your traditional all-nude, constructed from dust and ribs hetero couple. After that, things get wonky.
The Bible is a thoroughly authentic book, recording the failures and consequences of everyone, including its heroes. That doesn’t mean it approves of its records.
And just because God’s design for marriage was for one man and one woman doesn’t mean people have to get married. Paul made it very clear that singleness was an option, and for him, a preference.
I love Bible lessons from people who have never seriously studied it.
The leap from homosexual marriage to bestiality isn’t a slippery slope, it’s a jump over the Grand Canyon.
The bigamy / bestiality / incest argument isn’t primarily a slippery slope (though, btw, not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies). It is a “cliff” argument, where the arguments for one thing (same-sex marriage) simultaneously support the others. The slippery slope only comes into play because it takes a little longer for society to slide down the moral decline and tolerate / accept the other behaviors.