I say this because there are a lot of things that are normal (by some a simple one-part definition: i.e. does it occur in nature) and are also very damaging to human flourishing. You sort of covered this by asserting a complex 3-part definition of "normal" --- I get that --- but most people wouldthink of "normal" meaning "within a standard range of variations," and conclude that hoimosexuality is normal just like left-handedness is normal.
I would argue that the heart of the question does not require an evaluation of homosexuality as a trait (a tendency or personality variation) but does demand an evaluation of marriage.
Namely, in a world with a huge number of friendship and relationship possibilities, how is marriage uniquely suited only for a male and a female?
Most forms of friendship between adults occur without any external ceremonies, licensing, or regulations. It is assumed that two adults (or three, or any number of adults) will regulate their quilting circle, their bowling team, their fitness-walking-buddyhood, their joint foodie explorations, their gabfests, their romances and amours, or whatever, according to their own preferenes and without public recognition or oversight.
If the adults' relationship involves money, or property, or goods or services, that's what private contracts are all about: again, the adults are assumed capable of contracting to their own mutual satisfaction.
In sum: adults don't need oversight to regulate their relations with colleagues, friends, or lovers.
How is marriage between a woman and a man different from this? Because their sexual union (formalized in marriage) is the only kind of sexual union which can bring forth dependent offspring. And there needs to be an institution which keeps the man and the woman together with any children they bear.
In other words, marriage is not essentially about the intimate relations of adults. Theyu can manage that as they like. Marriage is essentially a bond between a potentially procreating couple, and the children who result from the bond.
If it were not for the possibility of begetting, the state would have no legitimate interest in the relationships of adults per se. There is no PUBLIC interest in regulating romances and love affairs. The PUBLIC interest is in securing the rights of dependent children by recognizing and defending their bond with their natural father and mother.
Good post. I’ll use this argument. The homo crowd are quick to bring up the fact that the elderly get married and that they usually have no potential for offspring.
“I would argue that the heart of the question does not require an evaluation of homosexuality as a trait (a tendency or personality variation) but does demand an evaluation of marriage.
Namely, in a world with a huge number of friendship and relationship possibilities, how is marriage uniquely suited only for a male and a female?
Most forms of friendship between adults occur without any external ceremonies, licensing, or regulations. It is assumed that two adults (or three, or any number of adults) will regulate their quilting circle, their bowling team, their fitness-walking-buddyhood, their joint foodie explorations, their gabfests, their romances and amours, or whatever, according to their own preferenes and without public recognition or oversight.
If the adults’ relationship involves money, or property, or goods or services, that’s what private contracts are all about: again, the adults are assumed capable of contracting to their own mutual satisfaction.
In sum: adults don’t need oversight to regulate their relations with colleagues, friends, or lovers.
How is marriage between a woman and a man different from this? Because their sexual union (formalized in marriage) is the only kind of sexual union which can bring forth dependent offspring. And there needs to be an institution which keeps the man and the woman together with any children they bear.
In other words, marriage is not essentially about the intimate relations of adults. Theyu can manage that as they like. Marriage is essentially a bond between a potentially procreating couple, and the children who result from the bond.
If it were not for the possibility of begetting, the state would have no legitimate interest in the relationships of adults per se. There is no PUBLIC interest in regulating romances and love affairs. The PUBLIC interest is in securing the rights of dependent children by recognizing and defending their bond with their natural father and mother.”
Very well articulated and thought out. I remember one of the higher ups at a job I worked at a few years back. He was homosexual and complained about marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. I thought(though did not say for fear of losing my job) what is he worried for? No matter how hard he tries, he will never get pregnant. Why does he “need” for the government to actually become more involved and have power over his personal life than it does now?
You are abosultely correct and your comments are truly insightful. We cannot leave children out of the marriage debate. Kids need two parents and those parents need to be married. That on average drives the best results for the woman, the man, the children and their society. That’s the historical fact and the science is catching up to it.
That said, my argument is on one narrative we’ve heard from the pro-homosexual lobby - that homosexuality is normal. That’s a logical fallacy called: equivocation. Normal has more than one meaning. Clearly, same-gender attraction isn’t ideal.
We have to push back against the reigning secularism and in my opinion do so using the very same tools the left uses. Here in this article they’re attacking us using a faith-based approach. These clergy are counterfeits in the same way the Chinese have a fake Dalai Lama.
Turnabout is fair play, especially when the facts and reality are on our side. Same-gender attraction is most likely a mental illness caused by epigenetic effects in the womb as well as a child’s environment.
Most people don’t know the history of how homosexuality was removed from the DSM. Here it is and as told by liberals:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-Words
Use it to sway the masses who are being groomed on the meme that homosexuality is “normal”.
We need many tacks to drive the argument back to God’s reality. Homosexuality is unhealthy physically. It is a mental illness which doesn’t make them evil, but points out a cure - spiritual, psychological or as a medical/chemical intervention.
That’s the only meme that will win against the Pink Mafia. Love (charity) the sinner and hate the sin - show that the sin is an abnormal result which is treatable and reversable (hope). Show it over and over again by sharing the best science we have including the above history by the liberals at NPR (faith).
We’ve then testified through faith, hope and charity (all of which endure eternally) using secular science and history. It’s a win-win.