Sunday, November 11, 2007
Brief
Scott and I are arguing over gay rights. I'm arguing that because gay relationships are unnatural, go against Christianity and the Bible, and create a negative impact on their children (if they have the right to adopt), some rights of gay couples should be limited. According to conservative Christians, sexual acts are for procreational purposes only. Being that the sexual activities of homosexuals are fruitless, homosexuality goes against many people's beliefs. Not only that, but the Bible implies in Genesis 2: 24 that marriage is between "one woman for one man for one lifetime." Therefore, arguing gays' right to marry is directly related to arguing against the Bible. That's asking for a ticket to hell. Also, studies have shown that children growing up in a household with parents of the same-sex are more likely to become gay and/or be socially different from their peers than those raised in a straight household. Imagine growing up with two dads or two moms. There's is no doubt that you will be teased and humiliated by your peers; it's just common knowledge. This will most-likely result in social problems for the child. As a whole, I'm not arguing to discriminate against gays, but I do believe that in reality, the rights of homosexuals must be limited. They should not be allowed to adopt, nor should they be allowed to marry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Don't delude yourself: as a whole you are arguing to discriminate against gays. You are calling for special rights for straight people that gay people should not have. When you try to claim otherwise, you make it seem like you're not really paying attention to what you're calling for.
Instead, take your stance and commit to it. You do want to discriminate against gays, because their kids would be picked on. Of course, once you've established that as your bar and your rational, you can also call for discrimination against the ugly, or the folks who are in the minority locally - the kids of black parents, or Jewish parents, or parents' conservatism makes them look dorky.
And it will be most effective for you to keep the conversation focused on the parents, and not on the kids. Because if you keep your focus on the kids, someone might notice that there is a shortage of adoptive parents in this country, with more than 100,000 kids awaiting adoption, and then you'd have to end up arguing that it's better that they not have any family than to have a family that might get them picked on. (And, of course, no kid could get picked on for not having a family, right?)
You've set yourself up to accept your "true" stance on this issue, as I know it. As "Nat g" suggests, you are arguing to discriminate against one group, which could very well lead to more widespread discrimination, a common reaction by those in favor of gay marriage. There are more points of view that argue against gay marriage than that of a conservative Christian. Don't leave those more practical arguments out.
You are assuming numerous instances of embarrassment and hardship for children of these relationships that seems unfounded. Stay focused on your position, as Nat g suggests, but make sure you are arguing 'your' stance with practical evidence. If you want to include the religious argument, feel free to do so, but try to stick to specific instances from the Bible, or other religious book, and don't assume.
Post a Comment