| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD |
| Vital notes |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality/ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
|
|
 | There is no consensus that homosexuality is genetically caused:
| ||||||
| Homosexuality is not a preference. Heterosexuality is not a preference either. They are sexual orientations. Take heterosexual men as an example. They do not "prefer" to have sex with women in preference to sex with another man. Rather, they are excited by the thought of sex with a woman, and repulsed by the thought of sex with another man. So too with homosexual men. They do not "prefer" to have sex with men instead of with women; they are sexually attracted to other men and sexually repulsed to other women. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are actually sexual orientations, not preferences. They are part of what a person is; part of their identity. | ||||||
| Persons with a homosexual orientation do not "reject the opposite sex without regard for merit." They typically have many heterosexual friends. They merely refuse to consider them as sexual partners. Similarly heterosexuals reject same-sex individuals as potential sexual partners; many have homosexual friends. | ||||||
| Both same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage are "inherently sexist." Partners in same-sex and opposite sex relationships discriminate and exhibit prejudice equally. In same-sex couples, it is prejudice against a spouse of the opposite sex; in opposite-sex couples, it is prejudice against a spouse of the same sex. | ||||||
| We allow people to pick and choose whom they will marry. The state does not intrude and ban selection on the basis of race, color, nationality, language, degree of ability, age, shape, weight, hair color, eye color, etc. They only intrude when the person selects the same sex. |
23: Unconstitutional institutions should be not be given tax-payer funded benefits.
Assertion: Same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Thus, same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry and enjoy their approximately 1,500 government benefits and rights. The latter should be reserved to opposite-sex married couples whose marriages are constitutional.
Rebuttal:
| If SSM were unconstitutional, then they cannot be recognized. | ||||
| There is disagreement about the unconstitutionality of SSM. | ||||
| There seem to be two schools of thought in the U.S. on the legality of
SSM:
| ||||
| In the case of Massachusetts and Hawaii, courts were faced with this
type of dilemma:
The courts decided that the provisions of the constitution outweighed those of legislation. If the state allowed a man to become engaged to a woman and marry her, then the state had to allow a man to become engaged to another man and marry him. To do otherwise would discriminate on the basis of the partners sex. It would be a sexist act, forbidden by the constitution. Rather than engage in state activism, as many religious and social conservatives charge, the courts were simply ignoring tradition, obeying the higher law (the constitution), and declaring the lower law (legislation) unconstitutional. | ||||
| The legislatures of both Hawaii and Massachusetts determined that the only way to prohibit same-sex marriages constitutionally was to actually change the state constitution to discriminate against SSM. |
24: The government bans same-sex institutions:
Assertion: "Our government would not allow company partnerships to declare same-sex all-male-dominated or same-race leadership, so why should the family, the basic institution of society, be an icon of sexism?"
Rebuttal:
| Your assertion is wrong. Company leadership that consists of all-male, Caucasian members is probably the most common form of corporate organization in North America. The government allows it. |
| The Roman Catholic Church and many conservative Protestant denominations discriminate against women in leadership positions. Yet, the government grants them non-profit status. |
| Some religious denominations are race-based: essentially all of their membership is either African-American or Caucasian. Their leadership tends to be made up of individuals of one race. |
| By your terms, opposite-sex marriages are also an "icon of sexism." As noted above, when heterosexuals consider marriage, they automatically reject considering a same-sex partner. They also may discriminate in their selection of a spouse on the basis of age, hair color, body style, etc. |
| Opposite-sex marriage is based on discrimination. A person typically has to date many dozens of people in order to find someone that may be worth pursuing as a potential partner. And they have to pursue many of them before finding a person that they can commit to for life. In the meantime, heterosexuals reject half the human race -- all of the people in the world of the same sex -- as potential romantic partners. So too with homosexuals, except they reject all the people of the opposite sex. |
| Everyone discriminates in the selection of a spouse. Only a small percentage of bisexuals -- those who are equally attracted sexually to both men and women -- are without discrimination on the basis of sex. |
25: "If genetic alcoholics can abstain from alcohol, like anyone, gay folks can abstain from sexist preference."
| There are a lot of items to consider in that sentence:
|
So I will rewrite your point: "If genetic alcoholics can abstain from alcohol, like anyone, gay folks can abstain from sex and same-sex marriage."
| Everyone, heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals can abstain from sex. They can decide to become celibate. Many do. They still retain their sexual orientation. Their sex-based feelings of attraction for other people remains. However, they don't act on it. |
| Homosexuals certainly can decide to be celibate and lead a lonely life without the type of close, intimate relationship found in marriage. Many gays and lesbians accept the conservative Christian interpretation of the Bible which concludes that God hates same-sex behavior. So they try to abstain from sex because that is what they feel God expects of them. |
| But should society expect people to be celibate? Every day in North America, people meet; sometimes they enjoy each other's company; some start to date; they occasionally fall in love; they often move in together; they may make a permanent, life time commitment to support each other. Most at this point decide that they want to marry. Marriage brings them over 1,000 federal benefits and many hundreds of state/provincial benefits. If they happen to be an opposite-sex couple, there are few limitations to marriage, except for age and genetic closeness. But, as of 2005-FEB-04, same-sex couples are discriminated against in the U.S. and Canada. They can only marry in Massachusetts, and then they can receive only state benefits. The state taxes homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Then they use some of that tax revenue to reward opposite-sex couples only. Some feel that this is fundamentally unjust. |
26: SSM would have disastrous demographic repercussions:
Assertion: If the government made SSM available, more young people would decide to marry same-sex partners. Although some same-sex married couples do decide to raise children, they do so at a lower rate than do opposite-sex couples. Over time, this would "contribute to a accelerated decrease of the population belonging to the group considered as of Caucasian background and by the same token to Christians." [Italicized text was taken from an E-mail from a visitor to our web site.]
Rebuttal:
| There are three possible sexual orientations:
Whether the overall effect of SSM on the population is positive or negative, the rate of population increase can be regulated by changing the number of immigrants to North America. | ||||||
| You express concern that the percentage of Caucasians in the population will be particularly prone to reduction if SSM becomes available. Your comment has racist overtones; you would seem to prefer to live in a country consisting exclusively of White folks. However, there is no evidence that the rate of homosexuality or bisexuality varies among people of various races. So, SSM is unlikely to affect the balance of African Americans, Asians, Caucasians, Native Americans, etc. in North America. | ||||||
| You express concern that the Christian population will be particularly prone to reduction if SSM becomes available. Liberal Christian denominations generally welcome individual homosexuals and same-sex couples as members. Most conservative Christian denominations and some mainline Christian denominations do not. SSM would make it more likely that homosexuals and bisexuals who are involved in loving committed relationships, and who marry, would be more visible in religious institutions and thus would be more likely rejected and ejected by them. This would reduce the number of Christians affiliated with conservative and mainline religious groups in North America. However, it would not likely have much affect on the total number of North Americans who regard themselves as Christians; many of those rejected by their denominations would become solitary practitioners; others would transfer to a gay-positive faith group. Also, any loss in affiliation with Christian groups would be matched by losses within other religions. So the market share of Christianity should not be affected significantly. The percentage of North American who identify themselves as Christian is currently dropping by about 8% per decade, due to other reasons. That drop would overwhelm any impact that SSM would have on the number of North American Christians. | ||||||
| The visitor to our site who argued against SSM is particularly concerned about the proposed federal bill that would legalize SSM across Canada. This is not liable to have a measurable impact on the total population, the racial balance, or the religious diversity of Canada. As of 2005-FEB-03, 87% of Canadians live in one of seven provinces or in one territory where SSM is already available. A lawsuit is expected in Alberta which will probably legalize SSM there in the spring of 2005, before the federal bill can become law. This would raise the percentage of Canadians with easy access to SSM to 97%. Thus, the law would only affect 3% of Canadians by requiring same-sex couples to drive to an adjacent province or territory to get married. The law could not have a significant impact on the visitor's population, racial and religious concerns. |
We hope to add additional points in the future. If you have any to suggest, please Email them to us.
Many other arguments why same-sex marriage (SSM) is undesirable (and desirable) are located elsewhere on this web site.
|
Home >Religious info. >Basic >Marriage >SSM >Menu >Good? >here |
|
Home >"Hot" topics >Homosexuality >SSM >Menu >Good? >here |
Copyright © 2004 & 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2004-MAY-24
Latest update: 2005-JAN-04
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
