..
..

Anti Gay Marriage Argument: Gay Marriage Destroys the Family. Let good Christians unite against gay and lesbian marriage. Yes? No?
politically incorrect list of controversial topics
 
 

Anti gay marriage argument: gay marriage destroys the family.
So let good Christians stand against gay and lesbian marriage.
Question: does this make sense?

Christians anti gay marriage
(Sorry - no video)

Today's topic. Christians who claim that gay marriage will destroy the family.

It doesn't make sense to me.

But first, why address this? I've heard this argument from a bunch of Christians very upset by the recent legalization of gay marriage in the States, and they're people I agree with on many other issues.

So, why doesn't it make sense to me?

I met a friend the other day. His daughter is getting married, he told me. Congratulations, I said. The less than usual thing: his daughter is marrying a woman. Now, my friend is a church-going Christian. I don't know if his denomination accepts gays and lesbians fully, including as ministers. But I know he and his wife accept their daughter and her partner fully.

The question: is such acceptance going to damage heterosexual families?

Let's imagine that my friend's daughter and her wife moved in across the street from, or even right beside, some heterosexual couples. How might this destroy, or even in any way damage, the heterosexual couples? Would the heterosexual couples immediately get divorced? Would they start fighting or drinking or taking drugs?



I know things that damage marriage.
My father's father beat his wife and children. He also drank away most of the money, causing terrible financial hardship. The battering and drinking damaged the family, caused massive suffering.

It also damaged the family that no one came to help. My grandmother was sent back home by the village priest, when, one winter night, unable to endure any more, she ran out into the night and took shelter in a rough shack in a field.

I don't think it would have mattered in any way if there had been a dozen gay and lesbian married couples in the village.



Other things damage marriages. Lack of love. Disrespect. Not knowing how to be supportive. Lack of communication. Not valuing commitment. Infidelity. Drug abuse. A society which does not value commitment. A society which does not encourage respect, from very early on.

I could go on and on with the things that very clearly damage and destroy marriages.

Having gay and lesbians couples - unmarried and/or married - in the neighborhood is not a factor that comes to mind.



So why do many people - with Christians being among the most vociferous - get so bothered about gay marriage?

The first thing that comes to mind: people first have a decision, and then find justifications. Lots of studies show this is the case.

In other words, people are against gay marriage - have somehow learned this is abhorrent or disgusting or evil - and then find something that sounds like a valid justification: horrors! gay marriage will destroy the family!!!

If these people bothered to think about it, they would see that what they are saying is not an example of good clear logical critical thinking.

Instead it seems to fit more as an example of BRAIN WRECK - when things inside the brain impede good clear logical critical thinking.



There's another argument I have heard against gay marriage, and that it's just one step down a dangerous slippery slope. I've had jokes come into my inbox with a judge faced with ever more ludicrous "couples," with the last being something like a person and a chair, and in the end he just gives up.

My counter-argument: we live on slippery slopes, and the just course of action is to evaluate every case on its own merits. I won't prohibit one thing because something else, further down that slope, is bad. Just think of food. It's on a slippery slope, going from under ripe to rotten. I don't throw out food, because later on down that slope, it will be rotten.



It would be fine if Christians against gay marriage just said, gay marriage is prohibited in my religious texts. (In other words, "my god says so.") Then they could argue with other people (such as Christians who disagree about what is said in the texts) about what the religious texts say or don't say. But the basis of the objection to gay marriage would be clear.

One note: in a society where many religions are accepted, we can't use, "my god says so," and expect that other people will see that as a justification for general social condemnation or approval.




I also know non-religious arguments against gay marriage - notably, marriage is meant for procreation. But so many people do all they can to prevent procreation, and no one demands that they divorce immediately. People also marry when the woman is well beyond reproductive age - and no one is outraged.



What are we dealing with? Once again, my experience is that I am facing emotional responses justified by "reasons" that don't stand up to a close look. Another term for that is BRAIN WRECK.



I say, get upset about things that are clearly dangerous to marriage.

Many traditional Christians are extremely - and very vocally - upset about gay marriage being permitted. But only about 5% - or perhaps even only 2% - of the population is gay or lesbian, and those who will choose to marry are a minority of that.

But there is a 10-15% alcoholism rate in many Western countries. I say: focus on the damage caused by alcoholism, if you really care about things that destroy the family. As for disrespect, the level of disrespect is horrific. High school is described by many students as a zoo - and not as a good zoo!!



By the way, I am for religions only marrying those they approve of marrying. So some religions won't marry divorced people. Some won't marry people who don't belong to the same religion. Quite a few won't marry same-sex couples. I say, fine.

In other words, as long as the argument is "my god says so," but there is religious freedom for other religions to have different standards, that's fine. In fact, I believe there have been no coercive legal measures enacted, in Western countries anyway, to force all religions to marry divorced people or people with different religious beliefs. Likewise it makes no sense to force religions to marry same-sex couples.

On the other hand, I also see no valid reason to prohibit religions from marrying divorced people, people with different religious beliefs, or same-sex couples.

I do hold that the only viable ethical position, re civil marriages, is that they need to be available to people of all sexual orientations. (This is outside the province of religion.)



I'm also against destroying the livelihood of people who don't want to bake wedding cakes or provide flowers for gay weddings. I think of conscientious objectors who will not serve in the army because of their convictions. I have always been in favor of their being allowed to follow their conscience without penalty. It doesn't make sense, for something much smaller like refusing to bake a cake, to fine conscientious objectors $100,000. (I know this is a complex issue - one for another time.)



Why bother dealing with this? We hurt ourselves, and any cause we care about, if we don't think well.


Elsa
July 15, 2015

PS. By now I've heard from people, the people I send to regularly, counter-jihad and often also traditionally Christian or Jewish. Read the responses - and my response.

PPS. For those of you who are Christian or Jewish and whose argument against same-sex marriage is "my god says it's wrong" - fine. I do know, though, that many Christians and Jews argue otherwise. What do I say? Jesus is famous for having said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That can be taken to mean that if you want others to accept your sexual orientation (as long as you are not coercive), do the same and accept the sexual orientation of others.

PPPS. For a quick look at my ethics:
http://elsasemporium.com/reality-based-ethics.html

PPPPS. For a different instance of brain wreck among many Christians and Jews, here's a piece (including a video) on politically correct Christians and Jews, especially their penchant for interfaith that does not ask any hard questions about the truth about the religions. (Note: these Christians and Jews are usually pro-gay marriage!!) Loads of people responded to that video, by the way, agreeing with what I said.

Click here for the video, along with the comments.

politically correct Christians - brain wreck



Anti Gay Marriage Argument: Gay Marriage Destroys the Family.
So let good Christians unite against gay and lesbian marriage.
Good thinking answer: BRAIN WRECK
.



Click here to go to the home page,
from this piece on anti gay marriage arguments



Click here to more exploration of brain wreck -
what's inside of the politically correct brain



Click here to go to the top of the page

 

Anti Gay Marriage Argument: Gay Marriage Destroys the Family.
So let good Christians unite against gay and lesbian marriage.
Good thinking answer: BRAIN WRECK
.

 




register now

  7 MOTIVATIONS for GOOD THINKING
          (excerpt from THINK or SINK)

  plus    STOP WAIT GO . . .
        (a LOVE POEM in a mini e-book)

Name:
Email:


     I care about your privacy.
     I will only use your email address
     to send you updates.

   Elsa



   
top of page

 



Home

Featured
Videos


All Videos

Think or Sink

Reality Based
Ethics


Rights
Movements
Gone Wrong


French
Immersion


Education
Not
Indoctrination


Churchill or
Luke Skywalker


Brain Wreck

Proud to be
WHITE


Gratitude
to Whites
Week


Brain Wrecked
Christians


8 more
short
Idea Videos
including
The Age of
Secrecy




No Video


Anti-Gay
Marriage -
Brain Wreck?


No
Gay Marriage!




eBook
Think or Sink




A Few
Description
s




Media:

Recent
Interviews


A Few
Topics

expert speaker - Elsa Schieder, PhD
politically
incorrect
expert
speaker
with PhD
plus
street smarts

expert speaker - Elsa Schieder, PhD












contact



copyright © Elsa Schieder, Elsa's Emporium, 2012-2017 - all rights reserved

All content of this website is copyrighted.
Please contact about republishing any piece.
Do not republish without the author's consent.