Tuesday, November 11, 2008

WHY I AM ANGRY WITH THE GAY MARRIAGE AGENDA

Thankfully, Proposition 8 passed, as you readers know. Not surprisingly, three lawsuits have been filed, one by the liberal ACLU, one by a lesbian couple, and one from city councils.

I don't understand the "arguments" of those who voted no on Prop 8.

"It's discrimination!" they say. Well, then I guess we should let an incestuous brother and sister marry. After all, to not let them do so would be to "discriminate" against them and it wouldn't protect their "rights" as "minorities." We could apply this equally to polygamists, someone who wishes to marry a consenting 12-year-old, etc., etc.

Some would say "no, you committed the slippery slope fallacy!" First of all, to respond to this, the slippery slope *can* be a fallacy; but there are some slippery slopes which are valid. I think the burden of proof is on those who advocate gay marriage to prove that it is not a slippery slope. What I did above was I took the criteria of their argumentation and applied it equally, and I think I showed how it is valid. Gay marriage advocates need to demonstrate why the slippery slope argument against them is *not* valid.

Furthermore, since the California State Supreme Court approved the ballot measure for Proposition 8, they need to be consistent and not overturn it now. Twice now the people have voted, and Californians still oppose gay marriage.

Homosexuals *know* that what they do is wrong. They know that homosexuality is wrong. The reason why it angers me so much is because they don't rest at allowing others to live their lives--they really want to push this on us. They want to justify their evil so they wish to look for acceptance of it.

Furthermore, homosexuals refuse to admit their evil. Recently, the gospel singer Ray Boltz came out of the closet. Even though this hurt his family and caused a divorce, he refuses to admit his evil against his wife and children.

Many homosexuals just "give in" and say that they must have been born that way or that they are normal. I think they give up trying to battle it. Well, many married men struggle with lusting after other women, but many married men battle this lust.

Imagine if I just got tired of battling lust one day and said "Well I must have been born to want to pursue many women, so this is who I am"?! (Don't you dare discriminate against me!)

And what angers me even more is, many homosexuals refuse to take responsibility for those they hurt because of their evil. It's like talking to a wall.

Romans 1 and 2.

13 comments:

Josh Brisby said...

Another thing. I've noticed that many gays don't really care about how their actions hurt others. One told me "that's not my responsibility--I refuse to accept it!". I have read stories of gays married to the opposite sex, who abandoned their spouses and children because of it, not caring that it hurt others, just caring that they can practice their homosexuality. So many gays don't care that it hurts others. But they cry out against "being hurt" by prop 8? Something's amiss here.

theonomist said...

Careful Josh, you're sounding like a transformationalist, or worse yet, a theonomist! Oooooh. Guess you need to keep going to the URC there faithfully and get Dr. Clark to exorcise those old theonomist sentiments out of you!

:)

LOL

Just playing around my friend. Bless you.

Kazoo

Josh Brisby said...

Hey Jeff,

I know you're playing around, and that's cool. But I can't miss saying that nowhere in my post did I argue from Christianity against homosexuality. You might notice that my arguments were reductios.

At the end when I mentioned Romans 1 and 2, I am saying that I am not surprised that these people are acting the way Romans 1 and 2 says.

Anonymous said...

Josh-

I know you're playing around, and that's cool. But I can't miss saying that nowhere in my post did I argue from Christianity against homosexuality. You might notice that my arguments were reductios.

Is that your thing now, since you became a 2 kingdom advocate?

Suppose the minorities in question grant that brothers & sisters that want to marry are also discriminated aganist and deserve the right to marry......what then for your reductio

Suppose further that they are willing to grant you anything thing you wish to show no mattter how absurd the example.

At what point do you show your cards and say, "oops...I was really arguing with you because of my Christian convictions", which is the only reason *you* would argue a reductio aganist a queer anyway?

Or am I misreading you?

Taylor

Josh Brisby said...

Taylor,

Welcome to The Reformed Oasis!

First, please abstain from using offensive words such as "queer" when referring to homosexuals. Although I oppose homosexuality, this does not give us the right to use offensive words about homosexuals.

If one arguing for homosexuality wants to grant me my reductios, and they want to grant me something, no matter how absurd, then the next step is for them to live it out. If it is unlivable, then they should reconsider their arguments.

Josh Brisby said...

Taylor,

Sorry, to address your other point. Again, as I mentioned to Kazoo, my post was not an argument against homosexuality from religious convictions, but one based on natural law. There are plenty of non-religious, non-Christian, natural law theorists and philosophers who have written papers and arguments from natural law ethics critiquing homosexuality. I would suggest doing some research there and then perhaps demonstrating what flaws, if there be any, you believe there are in their arguments/papers.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brisby,

If one arguing for homosexuality wants to grant me my reductios, and they want to grant me something, no matter how absurd, then the next step is for them to live it out. If it is unlivable, then they should reconsider their arguments.

Perhaps you should reconsider your arguments. There isn't anything devestating to the gay marriage position by *your* reductio.


Sorry, to address your other point. Again, as I mentioned to Kazoo, my post was not an argument against homosexuality from religious convictions, but one based on natural law.

So you think there are *natural laws*? And where exactly do these laws come from? Do male dogs violate these laws when they have intercourse with other male dogs? Or do these natural laws only pertain to humans? I suppose I need you to explain what you mean by something being *natural*. I mean my desire to eat food is natural. Having sex with my boyfrend is natural, right? Or do you have a natural law argument against my natural desire to engage in premartial sex? I hope I am understanding you correctly.

There are plenty of non-religious, non-Christian, natural law theorists and philosophers who have written papers and arguments from natural law ethics critiquing homosexuality. I would suggest doing some research there and then perhaps demonstrating what flaws, if there be any, you believe there are in their arguments/papers.


Well I will look into it a bit. Do you have any names or books you would recommend? Also, I am not a professional philosopher, not even close, so I wont be engaging them even after reading them. Thanks in advance...

Taylor

P.S. Is the word "queer" offensive because of a natural law?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brisby,

One more thing.....

Usually religious folk claim that atheist, or non-religious people, have no *objective* standards for moral issues. Thus, they are arbitrary in making moral judgments. Given that you are a Christian, I assume, and use a non-religious system of ethics would it not be fair to say that a non-religious person can also have an objective system of ethics by using *natural law theroy*? That is, if in fact you believe natural law theory to be objective.

I suppose, though, that you can claim that natural law theroy is not objective. This would then put you in the boat with the non-religious, right?

On the face of it it seems like a high price to pay for a religious person.

Thanks for your time-

Taylor

Anonymous said...

Josh,

It's clear that you don't quite understand what Prop 8 was about. It was not an argument about the ethics of homosexuality. It was about the application of civil law and whether or not discrimination based on sexual orientation would be written into the state's constitution.

Mt 19:12

Josh Brisby said...

Dear Anonymous Reader,

(1) Please include your name in the future. We usually do not accept anonymous comments here unless they are signed and named at the end of the post.

(2) I'm not sure how you thought I was arguing that Prop 8 had to do with the ethics of homosexuality. In my post I said no such thing. I discussed the legal aspects of Prop 8, and then I discussed briefly the broader implications of the ethics of homosexuality.

Josh Brisby said...

Taylor,

Thanks for your comments. Hang in there--I will respond to them soon, I promise.

Welcome again to The Reformed Oasis.

Josh Brisby said...

Taylor,

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I'm a busy guy with a wife and five young kiddies--but thanks for your patience!

You said:

"Perhaps you should reconsider your arguments. There isn't anything devestating to the gay marriage position by *your* reductio."

I see you assert that, but I have yet to see you prove it. It seems pretty devastating to me to ask homosexuals to prove what is so different about an incestuous couple asking for tolerance and acceptance or a consenting 12-yr-old and 45-yr-old asking for tolerance and acceptance or polygamists asking for acceptance or a father and a son or a mother and son, etc., etc. The burden of proof is on you.

You said:

"So you think there are *natural laws*? And where exactly do these laws come from?"

When I say "natural law" I am speaking of general revelation, or that which God has revealed to all mankind. Everyone knows these laws, but many suppress the truth about them in unrighteousness.

You wrote:

"Having sex with my boyfrend is natural, right? Or do you have a natural law argument against my natural desire to engage in premartial sex?"

The proof is in the plumbing.

You said:

"Usually religious folk claim that atheist, or non-religious people, have no *objective* standards for moral issues. Thus, they are arbitrary in making moral judgments. Given that you are a Christian, I assume, and use a non-religious system of ethics would it not be fair to say that a non-religious person can also have an objective system of ethics by using *natural law theroy*? That is, if in fact you believe natural law theory to be objective."

If atheists et al want to give an objective system of ethics, I'm all ears and eyes. I haven't heard or seen one yet.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brisby,

Hello again....

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I'm a busy guy with a wife and five young kiddies--but thanks for your patience!

No problem. Sounds like you must stay pretty busy....I had a few follow up comments to make.



I see you assert that, but I have yet to see you prove it. It seems pretty devastating to me to ask homosexuals to prove what is so different about an incestuous couple asking for tolerance and acceptance or a consenting 12-yr-old and 45-yr-old asking for tolerance and acceptance or polygamists asking for acceptance or a father and a son or a mother and son, etc., etc. The burden of proof is on you.

Well, I thought I said earlier that *if* a homosexual conceeded that it is only fair to let a consenting 12-yr-old marry a 45-yr-old provided they(the homosexual in question) recieve the right to marry, then your reductio has lost its bite. Again, your reductio needs to be stronger. It needs to show something more absurd, if it can show anything.

I mean really....do you think a homosexual would not be willing to grant such a request? What moral obligation do they have that "collars" them to cut off the marriage boundries? Lets face it. Homosexuals are about as strange a union as anything on the planet.



When I say "natural law" I am speaking of general revelation, or that which God has revealed to all mankind. Everyone knows these laws, but many suppress the truth about them in unrighteousness.

Yes. You pointed this out in your orignal post. I think you mentioned something about Romans 1.
This is where I think there is some confusion on my part. I understand that *you* can make a natural law judgement based on what you think the Bible tells you, but as for those natural law theorist who you said were not Christians or religious, do they make the same arguments you make for the same reasons? They certainly do not consider themselves Natural Law Theorist according to Romans 1. If this is the case, than, in this reguard it seems that there is a fundamental difference between you and them.

For instance, lets say that someone argues that homosexuality is unethical because if it were allowed, in theory, the human species could become extinct, and the survival of the species is more important than an individuals sexual preference. Therefore, it is not allowed.

Would you say this argument is based on general revelation, or something else, say, evolution?

The proof is in the plumbing.

I can see your trying to be funny. I just simply don't get it. Could you give me a natural law argument condemning my premartial sex? BTW, we do use birth control.



If atheists et al want to give an objective system of ethics, I'm all ears and eyes. I haven't heard or seen one yet.

Now this is a strange statement, indeed. Earlier you said, "There are plenty of non-religious, non-Christian, natural law theorists and philosophers who have written papers and arguments from natural law ethics critiquing homosexuality."

You have granted in the above statement that some of these people are, in fact, atheist. You also agree that they are right. I assume you think this is objective.
Then you say this,"If atheists et al want to give an objective system of ethics, I'm all ears and eyes. I haven't heard or seen one yet."

Could you explain these two statements whch seem to contrdict each other?

On the face of it you will either have to concede that natural law ethics is *not* objective, which underminds your own ethical system, or grant that at least natural law ethicist that are aheist have, in fact, an objective standard of morality.

Do you think atheistic natural law ethicists are delusional, or something?

Thanks in advance...

Taylor


10:33 AM