The last post about gay marriage generated some interest and some comments very much worth considering. I posted my response to those comments below:
Alright. I found some time, so I’ll now respond to my gracious commenters – even if they didn’t get my name right. (cough…Lauren!) ;)
Jon, let me first respond to you. It’s very interesting to me that you “won’t touch any of my religious stuff”. That tells me you assume that theology has nothing to do with biology and politics. That’s an assumption that a majority of people throughout history have not held, so it might be worth dealing with. The fact is, I assume that there is a Creator, all knowledge comes from Him, and therefore all knowledge is unified. That implies that theology directly bears on biology and politics. In my epistemology, theology is more certain to me than either of the other subjects, so I’ll have to be persuaded with some pretty staggering proofs to be moved. (This is a viewpoint looked down upon by modern thought, but has the excellent credentials of thinkers not to be dismissed such as Plato, Augustine, and Aquinas.)
You call me out on not citing data, thereby attempting to shift the burden of proof. I’m sorry, but it seems to me my position is much more intuitive than yours about homosexual lifestyle. For instance, have you ever heard of the diseases proctitis or colitis? These are fairly rare and attack the rectum and colon. They occur in very high percentages among homosexuals for pretty obvious reasons. All that to say, the burden of proof is on you to find statistics that are not from the far left, but have a balanced perspective and give us accurate numbers.
As to your second point, monogamous gay men still do cost society money by a) not having babies to replenish the population and b) contracting diseases such as proctitis and colitis. Look, the homosexual lifestyle is just hard on the body.
Your third objection is a better one. Churches offer counseling for free. The problem is making it accessible. Some churches do though.
In your fourth point, you assume that paying taxes is more valuable than raising children. This point makes me pretty angry, so I won’t respond to it right now.
Lastly, I agree with you that “irresponsible” sex is bad no matter what. I don’t think it’s so “unquestionable” that sinful heterosexual sex is a “far greater cost to society.” (Again, I would like to see some numbers.) The reason is: at least heterosexuals are having babies! Why do so many people not understand that having children is a really, really important and valuable thing! Our whole economic infrastructure is built upon that. You know who is paying for my generation’s grandparents to live on Social Security right now, right? It’s a good thing my parents had me, because I’m going to be taking care of them.
________________
Ok, Lauren. (By the way, it’s okay for us to have a conversation, too!) I would also encourage you to put the burden of proof on the other position first for the reasons given above.
“However, studies show no difference in the adjustment between children raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents, so long as there is one consistent care-giver.” Please may I see these studies? I have heard exactly the opposite thing quoted.
In regards to marriage being an institution set up by God, I think we need a distinction between the sacrament and what’s natural. I’m not sacramental, but even if there is a special grace given in the marriage of Christians this does not entail marriage is “defiling” for every couple. Marriage is a natural grace that makes the world function much better. A wise man once argued to me that civilization started when the first man decided to have only one wife because of the civilizing effect – especially on men – caused by marriage. So, marriage is natural, i.e. created by God, and therefore it is good regardless of the state of the couple. Did God institute homosexual marriage? The answer to that is a pretty decided no. I’m afraid you are comparing apples and oranges, Lauren.
As to your argument about economics, please see my counter-argumments to Jon above.
Finally, to address your point about not extending rights to a certain faction or group: it’s not clear to me that prohibiting gay marriage is doing this. If we still had anti-sodomy laws, it would be a different matter. Those laws restrict homosexual sex period. The freedom of speech comes in when they can freely have sex.
