The same-sex marriage debate is unethically rooted in Christianity
Debate Rounds (5)
about same-sex marriages being legalized on a federal level. As a matter of fact, this may be one of the most important debates of today and if you ask me I'm clearly for it and wondering why it already hasn't happened. However it didn't take me long to figure this out. When researching, I came across a few refutations and videos against same-sex marriage and conclusively regarded them as rubbish. But I noted that all of the videos had mentioned the bible. Now this is delusional. Biblical morality cannot overcome love simply because love is something that cannot be controlled.
For all of the flaws we can draw out of ALL religions over the millennial, the one thing it cohesively draws upon is the inherent moral and ethical obligations of simply being a procreating race of mammal. Whilst I'm stating the obvious, if I were to be homosexual (as a male), I would not be able to procreate with another man; as the sexual acts I would partake in would not be conducive to the fertilisation of an [female] egg. This alone is illustrative of the unnatural state of homosexuality, and whilst there are many forms of corruption within the Protestant & Catholic faith (with regards to paedophilia etc.), the religious doctrine in its abstract form, and by its followers, strictly forbids 'sodomy'. And to round off this question, no, I do not think the debate is unethically rooted in Christianity, but is a theological/ideological belief system that inherently is threatened by the 'subversive' cultural implications of same-sex marriage; and therefore is a massively prominent force for the 'anti-marriage' stance.
And this is my main point, even as an atheist, I cannot and will not be forced into viewing the immoral and simply unnatural, social and psycho-sexual state that homosexuality is rooted in, and has been perpetuated by the LGBT lobby and state. You may try and rebuttal this with the pseudo-science of 'Epi-genetics', but there is little evidence of this scientific method proving anything other than many homosexuals coming from unstable - in one way shape or form - homes/backgrounds etc.
Likewise, I also appreciate that 'what's done behind closed doors, is none of my business'. I never have treated those who are homosexual in any way other than is expected by usual social conventions, so long as I feel their sexuality is not being forced onto me, I will not ostracise them at any un-called for degree. But to me, as well as the religious community, same-sex marriage is something that I feel has been trumped up by the state, more so than the LGBT/homosexual community, in an order to undermine and subvert traditional pillars of western society and its cultural values. Make of this what you will and feel free to get me to elaborate, but I do not want to skew too far away from said question.
http://www.pewforum.org...) Even with this percentage decreasing, I would still regard this country as a Christian nation. Also as an atheist, there are seven states that will not allow me to run for office. (http://americanhumanist.org...) I find this ridiculous, but it proves my point that America is rooted in Christianity.
As for your other remarks, something that stuck out to me was that you declined to say anything about love. Which led me to make the assumption that you believe that the goal of humanity is to procreate. As this may be, "sex" as lack of a better word is an integral part of love. And as our society is designed, one would come to have sex with a significant other if and only if love was present. The human is not a perfect being, that can procreate when ever he/she needs to, there is time and consent involved. Now if everyone was homosexual this would clearly be a problem, yet homosexuality does not affect everyone. As much as I would consider homosexuality as different, I would not consider it to be a unnatural trait of human nature because it is not a choice to be one. And isn't that truly the essence of humanity? It's very well the same as not having the choice of gender or race.
Now I'm not a homosexual and that may be a point to refute on. However, my parents divorced because my father was in the closet for nearly 30 years. Through the years I've not only inquired information from him, but also some of his friends that also affiliate themselves with the term.
TruthWillOut forfeited this round.
I'll respond to your last post and offer a further argument.
I understand your an American posing a question on American politics and religion etc. (naturally!). I'm actually an Englishman, however I felt like I could pose a counter-argument as I firmly believe that under globalism, the western world currently faces the same/very similar issues, regardless of nationality. I'm not sure if you guys across the pond have seen much news coverage on UK and Irish politics, but gay marriage has also been legalised over here completely.
Whilst my view is subject to a slightly different cultural viewpoint, even I'd agree that you not being able to run for office for not being a registered Christian is a little on the 'stringent' side of things. However, I would also argue that that goes back to my initial point, from what I do know of America and its people and politics (with variations, depending on the state your in I suppose?) is that there is a strong emphasis on your culture and history. And I think I can speak for the western world in this regard, Christianity is seen as a fundamental pillar to our history and culture, despite many of us being more atheistic now; can I ask what states require you to be Christian to run for office? The figure you raised is an interesting one, it would certainly back up what I've just reiterated, but I would also pay reference to the fact that those stats were likely inflated by the populations general desire to assimilate itself with its own sense of nationhood - as religion does not just have theological connotations, but as we under our respective nationalities, like to identify with our collective indigenous and homogeneous 'roots', will likely label ourselves as 'Christian', as even I have done. Respectively, over in the UK, Christianity in its self-identifiable form has dropped to 59.3% from our last 2011 census (we are due another one soon I believe). http://www.ons.gov.uk...
With Islam being the second largest religion at 4.8% - and given the current socio-political climate in England, this stat has likely been tampered with to reduce the domicile publics' understanding of how many Muslim folk there are, but that is an entirely different debate to be had! The UK's current cultural climate also permeates a decreasing need for even the indigenous peoples to identify with their religious roots (even as atheists), nor have we had any say in whether or not gay marriage should be allowed. Now the Catholic Church, which is far more vigilant in its anti-gay stance, legally has to accept a request from a gay couple to marry in the Church, if they so wish. Not to mention, the history of Ireland and much of its conflict is based on 500 years of Catholic/Protestant battles, Northern Ireland is Protestant (and in the UK) and the Catholic Republican South is as said, even more against (culturally, as well as religiously) the notion of an imposed set of legislation that forces a diametrically opposed institution to allow a gay couple to marry not only in the face of religion, but under its codes too. Again, this is seen as subversive. And to counter this initial point with regards to American politics, I'm going to put myself out on a limb and say that you guys (generally) are far more nationalistic than we are in the UK, there are probably less Christians than stats can reveal, but that American sense of allegiance to those aforementioned 'cultural pillars' would inflate this, and it indicates that maybe the gay marriage debate is not unethically rooted in Christianity (bearing in mind homosexuals are executed under Islam), but rides a very rough grain against this cultural and religious institution of Christianity, and the overarching heterosexual, atheistic population also.
Furthermore, whilst I did not outwardly mention 'love' in my initial point, I was deliberately being scientifically objective to demonstrate how at a fundamentally 'objective' level, humans, and mammals in our entirety, are not designed to be homosexual. And by a very Darwinian approach, homosexuality (although it is hardly at a dangerously disproportionate level worldwide) does in essence, undermine the survival element of nature. I will also insist that 'love' is an entirely subjective thing with differing layers of meaning; I absolutely 'love' sex (sorry if I appear crass!) with my female counterparts (both long-term and one night stands); I 'love' my Harley Davidson boots and bike, but I do not feel an innate psycho-sexual attraction to said inanimate objects; I 'love' my brother and father, but do not feel in the slightest need, to consummate a very Freudian psycho-sexual attraction - as the 'love' I feel for them is entirely different to the love I can feel for a woman, and the necessary bond this creates at a fundamental level of our very being, to enable the continuation of our genetic lines and rear a socially and biologically stable household. I do not pretend to have the answers for why and how homosexuality occurs, and I'm sure that for people like your father and a cousin of mine who quite humorously fits a very stereotypical image of the alpha-butch lesbian, their 'love' feels real to them. She's a laugh and a good party-goer, but again, I pose the same repost, I do not accept that homosexuality is normal, and that the religious response to the proposition of gay marriage is not unethically rooted in Christianity.
I also hope all's good with you and your father, whilst I may seem cold in my political argument, I wouldn't wish for a father-son dynamic to be eradicated because of his own sense of feeling.
And lastly, to offer further debate, I pose to you, that perhaps simply, there is no need for gay 'marriage' in the first place. Again, I can't speak for state-side politics, but over in the UK we have had 'civil partnerships' for gays only for over a decade now, that process was designed to consummate a homosexual couples' love. And in the spirit of the dialectic of 'equality' as nations like ours fashion it, surely heterosexuals should have access to this form of 'marriage' too? More so, the institution of heterosexual marriage at an economic level, is something that has been hijacked from the arms of tradition and ceremonial love, to that of a form of economic bondage to a capitalist state. It is no longer about the 'marrying' of two otherwise alien clans, but about essentially 'prostituting' our joint labour and income to the state; and for the elites of society, this is all marriage has been to them since the birth of feudal kingship!
So to expand this question and my proposition, I'll say that not only religion, but at a culturally tribal level, traditional marriage is being undermined two-fold; by gay marriage and now the signing away of said communions to the state, and not each other.
Grayneer forfeited this round.
Debate is pretty much over and I see no point in continuing if no response will occur.
Grayneer forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited more rounds.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.