Response to “Vote ‘yes’ on preserving society”
Now that I’m back from my wonderful vacation, I want to comment on an article that I saw a couple of weeks ago while perusing the internet. I came across the article “Vote ‘yes’ on preserving society” on Bob Jones University’s student paper, The Collegian.
Go to the website and read it for yourself. At first, I thought they made a compelling argument. Aside from the ridiculous notion that we legislate religious morals into law without evidence of any social benefit, there seemed to be nothing on which to base a prohibition on gay marriage. However, this article seemed to challenge that. I say “seemed” because upon further review, I realized that this article was, without a doubt, devoid of anything more than political spin and opinion made to seem like self-evident truth.
The point of the article was, I assume, to persuade, but I imagine that it acted more as a reinforcement to the faithful than a persuasion to the undecided. If there was supposed to be compelling content in this article, I certainly found none.
Let’s start with the title, “Vote ‘yes’ on preserving society”. This title has to be one of the most spin filled, condescending phrases I’ve seen in quite some time. Gay marriage and the end of society!!! Watch out!!! Of course, such a title would be warranted if the content in the article actually supported the notion (something I was eager to witness, I love having my mind changed). However, the article did no such thing.
Claim: Voters of all backgrounds need to realize that recognizing homosexual marriage as valid would be socially destructive. (quote)
Support: The socially destructive impact of recognizing homosexual marriage would be traumatic particularly to the children of the next generation—the future leaders of our nation…having two dads or two moms is the most unbalanced thing possible. No matter how hard someone may try, a woman cannot physically, emotionally or biologically be a dad, and a man can never be a mother. Attempting to do so is naive. (quote)
The first thing that came to my mind was that if that is the logic behind outlawing gay marriage, then we should also outlaw divorce and single-parenthood, since they also remove the “balanced” influence in a child’s life. If we criminalize gay marriage, then we must also make every woman/man whose spouse dies, remarry.
Secondly, scientific studies (thanks to George for the link) show that children of homosexual couples grow up to be as balanced as those from heterosexual couples. The main claim in the article is simply untrue!
It’s one thing to disagree with a particular policy on principle, but it’s quite another to make up arguments in support of your views. I truly believe that the anti-gay marriage movement is not evil or vicious. I believe they truly believe there is a reason out there for outlawing gay marriage. I think they firmly believe that it is a socially destructive practice. However, if you want something written into law, you must be able to prove that the law has some social/secular benefit, and you can’t just make it up. You must have proof!!!
So, do voters really need to realize that gay marriage is socially destructive? How can they? There is no evidence, as of yet, that could MAKE me realize such a thing. The support for the claim is simply false! Perhaps a little research would have served the readers, and the author, better.
Agree? Disagree? Send me an email or comment below.
Also, if you like this blog, subscribe to my feed so you’ll know when I post new stuff!
Nathan
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Thank you for this. In case any readers accuse you of not backing up your facts, here are some studies that do indeed show children of homosexual parents are equally well adjusted to their peers from ‘traditional’ families:
http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/113/110762.htm?pagenumber=2
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6670
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html
I think a lot of anti-gay advocates /are/ vicious. Like these nuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE&NR
And the people who murder gays, also nuts (but a minority).
This pretty much closes up the whole gay issue (well not quite):
[link removed, not because the article wasn't applicable, but some of the content might be objectionable. the link essentially gave examples of homosexual activities in the animal kingdom |~nathan]
Even the Catholics are now admitting that homosexuality is not a ‘choice’. However, this makes their logic even more twisted than the fundamentalist Protestants who abhor gays. According to the Catholic hierarchy, homosexuality is not a choice, but having gay relations is. Therefore, so long as gays never have gay relations, it’s ok. So basically, because of something which THE CATHOLICS ADMIT is nothing more than an accident of birth, an entire group of people is told they can never be allowed to have a romantic relationship. Ever.
I think it would be wise for for us to be careful to make a distinction between what Scripture says is right or wrong and what we as a secular democracy should consider legal or illegal. Just becasue something may be morally evil does not necessarily mean we should make it illegal. Certainly as a Christian I believe that worshiping a false god is evil (the first commandment God gives is to have no other god before Him!), but I would not want to make it illegal to worship Allah, Yahweh, or any other god or goddess (or none at all) in our country. I think when it comes of homosexuality, Christians should be careful to draw that distinction and do the exegetical work to show that the Bible considers homosexual behavior a sin and then do the more difficult work on sociological / political grounds to prove the case that it should therefore be illegal in our particular non-theocratic society. I think when we don’t make this distinction, we muddy the waters and don’t present our case well.
The bottom line is that the issue has nothing to do with legislating morality (something that is generally untenable).
It is about a definition. If somebody wanted to claim their dog, cat, and lizard as “child dependents” on their tax form- and demanded subsequent tax deductions on that basis- their claim would not hold water. Why? Because dogs, cats, and lizards are not children. Should homosexuals be allowed to declare legal marital status? You tell me.
Rob,
Well said! There are many things that I, as a Christian, think are wrong, as does the catholic or the Muslim or the humanist. As you said, legislating religious morals into law for no other reason than their presence in a particular religious dogma is utterly absurd.
Matthew,
It is indeed about definition. Obviously a line must be drawn somewhere, as things very easily slip down the slope in our culture. However, there must be some reason for drawing the line. Polygamy is probably socially destructive (as illustrated by the various polygamous cults in the US), and I imagine that statement would probably stand up to evidentiary scrutiny. If so, it would be in the interest of the country to restrict people from doing that (as it is currently, for good reason). The same for beastiality, pedophelia, etc.
“Should homosexuals be allowed to declare legal marital status? You tell me.”
Read this: http://www.nathanrice.org/2006/11/07/election-day-2006/
I’m and advocate for the abolition of government recognized romantic unions. I believe that marriage is a religious institution, not a government one. The government is more than welcome to recognize a 1-1 partnership for tax/will purposes, but anything further is a glaring example or too much government intervention into personal/religious matters.
“I’m and advocate for the abolition of government recognized romantic unions. I believe that marriage is a religious institution, not a government one. The government is more than welcome to recognize a 1-1 partnership for tax/will purposes, but anything further is a glaring example or too much government intervention into personal/religious matters.”
Exactly! The religious right has two choices: they can agree that legal marriage and religious marriage are two different animals, and accept that gays are entitled to the former; or else deny the government the right to marry anyone, homosexual OR hetereosexual. If marriages can only be obtained from churches, and governments can only give civil unions, gays will STILL be able to marry because there are plenty of churches that will marry them.
“Polygamy is probably socially destructive”
There’s a simpler reason for not giving marriage status to polyamories. If gays are denied marriage, they are essentially being told they cannot have romantic relationships because of an accident of their birth. Polygamists are still homosexual or hetereosexual, and are not being denied a romantic relationship with the person of their choice. They are simply being told they must choose the 1 person who is most special to them as their companion. That said, I must admit I am not certain where I stand on polygamy. The justification I just gave for not according it marriage status is a logical one, I think, but I am not sure I agree with it, and am willing to be convinced either way.
Hi,
I found your blog via google by accident and have to admit that youve a really interesting blog
Just saved your feed in my reader, have a nice day
Florian,
I’m so glad you found us! Thanks for stopping by and commenting.