Mary Jo Anderson, a columnist for WorldNetDaily and contributing editor to Crisis magazine, has engaged in an online debate on gay marriage at PublicSquare.net with David Link of the Independent Gay Forum.
Anderson wasn’t allowed to use any religious or spiritual arguments in the debate, having to make the case almost entirely from natural law, science, human custom, and so on. Personally, I think the exclusion of religious arguments is arbitrary, but these are the terms of the debate foisted on us by an increasingly secular society. Of course, if you find yourself having to argue the issue on those terms, this might be a helpful essay to have in your arsenal.
Technorati Tags:debates, same-sex marriage
She did a great job, there. You can’t fault her logic. Yet, none of these arguments seem to work on supporters of gay marriage. They rely on relativism to such a degree that you are backed into a corner, or what YOU believe to be a corner, anyway. After all, a ‘corner’ is a human construct. Who knows if there were corners in the beginning? There are probably languages with no word or concept for ‘corner.’ We can change its definition as we speak. Once reality is defined only in subjective terms, logic can’t win. So, pray a lot!
No religious arguments? That’s easy – populi locuta est, causa finita est. If no religious arguments can be forwarded, the only argument that can be is the voice of the majority. The majority has given a resounding “No” since the beginning of recorded history. Case closed.
When someone explains their need as a woman or a man to bond; or as a child to want a mother and father whether it is philosophical or biological we do not hate persons with same-sex attraction, we are only explaining the basis and design of the complentarity of the sexes. No civil law can change that.
I don’t have on the top of my mind how can I bug the bejeebers out of persons with same sex attraction, but apparently the gay lobby believes this and wants others to think this as our argument for not allowing them to be married. I realize when I engage in these conversation, I will be talking to a brick wall of sorts, but I’m very aware of the bystander reading. When I stand up for myself these conversations are automaticly derailed by people want to believe there is no difference between male and female when it comes to the design of the human body or irrationally I have nothing better to do then hate persons with same-sex attraction.
Non-religous explaination…
Our sexuality exists as a component of our reproductive system. Not the other way around or removed from one another. Reproduction, sexuality, and mating/bonding are not separate aspects of the human body. There is plenty of bio/neuro/psych evidence out there on that.
No matter your sexual orientation, gay and straight men still produce sperm. Homosexual and heterosexual women will have ovaries, fallopian tubes, uteruses, cervixes, and vaginas. Women want bonding, affection, protections, to help provide, and sex. Men just want sex. These two rules apply to both heterosexuals and homoseuxals.
With heterosexuals we have to play the mating game, in which the boy has to get the girl. The girl has to obtain trust from the boy. Girls gets all of the above, boy gets sex. With homosexual women get everything but sex, and with homoseuxal men they only get sex. Homoseuxals by their actions alone, and not their mere orientation, never engage in the “marital act” and do not open themsleves to the possibility of children. Marriage is never conssumated, the relationship is never exhausted to the end of its complementarity nature that our bodies were design to act upon.
What is there not to understand?
Renee,
What is there not to understand? Exactly. Except that if you argue from logic, or argue at all, gay marriage supporters (even Catholics) just keep questioning the definitions of every term you use. They don’t understand ‘male’. Or ‘female’. Try it if you don’t believe me. Every word of yours will be spun round and round until you’re dizzy and you give up.The dictionary will not be an acceptable source of meaning,the Bible will be turned upside down and mention of the Catechism will cause eyes to roll and mouths to foam, but the issue will remain unresolved. Either that, or i’ve given up too early. I’m old.
I’ve tried it. On way to many occasions. No matter how much I’m explain I’m trying to protect responsible procreative behavior,we will always be derailed. I don’t think I’m old. I need to learn just to live my life, and through my actions show what marriage really is.