Hey everyone, so in the spirit of equality and supporting homosexual marriage I recently shared this picture on facebook:

Sorry I don't know how to re-size this.

Anyway, my brother had this to say:

"This really is a strawman falacy becuase (most of) those who are against homosexual marriage are also against infidelity, pornography, "no-fault" divorce (or irreconcilable differences), and excessive spending. So really, (most of) the people who are against homosexual marriage would also be against the actions listed above.

Also, (most of, or maybe just many of) the people against homosexual marriage realize that it is not homosexual marriage that destroys the institution of marriage, but it is immoral (sinful) lives that destroy marriage. To many of these people, marriage is not a government or civil institution, it is a physical representation of a spiritual truth. Marriage is the symbol of God's love and desired relationship with humans. Since God ordained marriage, many people expect marriage to be congruent to what God deems correct.

There are other politcal, sociological, scientific, and philosophical reasons to disfavor homosexual marriage, but ultimately they take a back seat to the spiritual reason.
" (Oh and then his wife "liked" the comment he left)

As you can guess I really want respond to this but I have no idea what to say without sounding like an asshole (don't know why I bother considering) and I don't want to just delete the comment or ignore it because I feel like that would be somehow admitting defeat or something. So what do you think?

Tags: Xian, assholes, homosexuality

Views: 690

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Tell your brother he's a liar, a fool, delusional, and disowned. There is no point in arguing with someone like that. The moment someone brings "God" into the discussion, the discussion no longer exists. Saying something like "the symbol of God's love" means "Hey, let me remind you I'm irrational! You got no chance!"

I would probably tell your brother that i absolutely support his freedom of religion and that he is free to his religious ceremonies and traditions. But, a country is for the people by the people and so others should have the same equal rights regardless of the (religious) opinions of others, the desires of a majority do not trump the rights of a minority.
I hope that our future will be more inclusive, now that our world is getting bigger and we meet and mix with new cultures and ideas i would hope that we can all learn to respect each others rights, regardless of our opinions, something i would expect a Christian with their history of being persecuted to understand.

Something like that.

Or just post this.

I love it!

"This really is a strawman falacy becuase (most of) those who are against homosexual marriage are also against infidelity, pornography, "no-fault" divorce (or irreconcilable differences), and excessive spending. So really, (most of) the people who are against homosexual marriage would also be against the actions listed above.

It's about the hypocrisy of the right-wing defenders of traditional marriage. Many of the leaders are bigtime sinners when it comes to the sanctity of marriage and the family.

Of course, at the same time it's an example an ad hominem tu quoque. Just because someone is hypocritical is no proof that they are wrong, just that they are inconsistent.

Since God ordained marriage, many people expect marriage to be congruent to what God deems correct

PerfecT!

I posted this earlier in the week. It pairs nicely with your comment.

Top 15 Biblical Ways to Acquire a Wife!

You might use Justice Kagan's tactic and ask your brother to specify just what those "political, sociological, scientific, and philosophical" reasons are.  For that matter, just what is the "spiritual reason"?  A respected lawyer could only sputter and blather in response to Kagan's question before admitting that he couldn't think of any reasons. Two California courts struck down Prop 8 for that same reason: none of the plaintiffs could come up with a single negative effect of gay marriage that they were willing to put forth, since it would have made them look like ignorant bigots.  Speaking of which, Maybe your brother should have been the one to argue before the Supreme Court.

And your brother speciously equates homosexuality with those things (infidelity, pornography, etc.) he professes being against without providing any rationale for making that moral equivalency.  

Incidentally, Rush Limbaugh is on his fourth childless marriage, which helps render the specious "procreation" argument N/A.

Is I said earlier, marriage is a spiritual issue at its core, certainly not political.

It is legal and financial at its core. Reducing it to a spiritual matter is like reducing cola to just the air bubbles and still trying to call it a drink.

I like that, Kris

You need to distinguish between marriage as the law views it and any other sense of the term. The law doesn't give a flying f*ck about cheesy lovey-doveyness. It doesn't even require that people actually love each other to get married. To the law, marriage is a contractual arrangement with a variety of implications involving tax liabilities, what happens in case of dissolution (division of property, guardianship of children), or the death of one of the marital partners.

RSS

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 3 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service