The arguments that liberals use for their demand that same-sex marriage should be legally recognized in all states in the country generally espouse three arguments. The first argument is something to the effect of if two people love one another they should be allowed get married." The second point runs along the lines of if you are against same-sex marriage you are homophobic and simply dislike homosexuals. This rationale is generally followed by the question why do supporters of traditional marriage hate homosexuals? This question is usually followed with the declaration that those who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots. The declaration of those of us who support the traditional definition of marriage are bigots is generally followed by equating the struggle" for homosexuals to legally be married to the civil rights movement or womans suffrage. This also ties to the third argument being homosexuals are born homosexual. What person would choose such a lifestyle? Thus since they are born homosexual and it is not a choice they should be allowed to legally marry. When one examines and makes the logical extension of these arguments all three are either simply inconsistent and/or absurd.
The first point that needs to be made regarding all these arguments is liberals are claiming society does not have a right to define marriage. If they do believe society has a right to define marriage then they are being hypocritical as this belief runs counter to the argument that if two people love one another they should be allowed to get married. If liberals believe in a legal definition of marriage then they themselves contradict the first argument noted in this essay. If they believe society can define marriage then they are admitting marriage should be defined but they want their definition not the traditional definition of marriage being one woman and one man. Thus if they believe society can define marriage then that is inconsistent with the common retort if two people want to get married they should be allowed to do so. Defining marriage would mean there would still be laws against who can and who cannot get married.
Further regarding the first point the logical extension of the argument means the acceptance of polygamy adult consensual incest and the legal marriage of two people as long as one is of the age of consent. If two people who love each other should be able to get married then laws outlawing polygamy need to be overturned by all state legislatures for who is to say a man or woman cannot love more than one person? All laws regarding the illegality of one marrying a sibling or cousin should be overturned for who is to say a sister and brother or first cousin cannot fall in love with one another? In addition in some states including Ohio where I reside the age of consent is sixteen. Thus if liberal Catholics who believe two people should love one another should be married then a sixteen year old girl should be allowed to marry a 70 year old man for who is to say a sixteen year old cannot fall in love with a seventy year old man?
The second argument is hypocritical as well. If a liberal does not accept the aforementioned scenarios then they are not applying the same logic to their own logic. One who supports traditional marriage need only to ask Catholic supporters of same-sex marriage who use the argument if two people love one another they should be allowed to get married" three questions. Do you support overturning laws regarding adult consensual incest? Do you support overturning laws outlawing polygamy? And do you support overturning laws that restrict children who are of the age of consent but not yet legally an adult at the age of 18 to get married without parental consent?
If a liberal Catholic supporter of same-sex marriage answers no to any of the questions above then they by their own logic are bigots. Why do they hate people who desire to engage in adult consensual incest? Why do they hate people who want to have multiple husbands/or wives? Why do they hate sixteen year olds who desire to marry someone over the age of 18 without parental consent? If supporters of traditional marriage are bigots for not supporting same-sex marriage then proponents of same-sex marriage are bigots unless they answer in the affirmative to all of the questions listed above.
The definition of bigotry is defined by Merriam-Webster as a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people ideas etc. : a bigoted person; especially: a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot). I and the overwhelmingly majority of traditional marriage supporters I know do not hate homosexuals. We simply believe that marriage is a biblical definition of one man and one woman. This is not to say there are not people who hate or discriminate against homosexuals. Indeed there are but they are in the minority especially within the Catholic Church.
However many liberal commentators and supporters speak against the Catholic Church (as well as other religions) on the topic of support of traditional marriage with outright disdain and hatred. Thus obviously supporters of same-sex marriage refuse to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church on this issue. However more than disagreeing with the church many supporters of same-sex marriage have outright animosity towards the Catholic Church and its members who accept the teachings of the church regarding traditional marriage. Who is the bigot in this conversation? One could easily argue based on the application of liberals own arguments supporters of same-sex marriage are anti-Catholic anti-Muslim and anti-any religion that does not support same-sex marriage.
The third argument regarding homosexuality is not a choice and people are born homosexual is not based in fact. As Dr. Michelle A. Cretella noted in the book Breaking Through (Our Sunday Visitor 2012) there have been no scientific studies in the last forty years to support the concept that same-sex attraction is inborn. Again however for the sake of this essay I will grant liberal Catholics who support same-sex marriage the argument that same-sex attraction is indeed inborn because even if it is inborn acting on such attraction is still a choice.
It is possible for one whether straight or homosexual to choose celibacy. One does not have to act on feelings of same-sex attraction. This choice may run against the norm of our current sex-obsessed culture but that is not the point. The point to be made is it is still a choice whether same-sex attraction is inborn or not to act on such attraction. In addition it is a choice to choose not only to engage in the act of homosexual sex but to marry one within the same gender. One is choosing these actions.
Blacks are not choosing to be black they are born black. Females are not choosing to be female they are born female. Thus equating the push to make same-sex marriage legal to womens suffrage or the civil rights movement in the 1960s is the most absurd argument of the three.
The arguments that liberals use for their demand that same-sex marriage should be legally recognized in all states in the country generally espouse three arguments. The first argument is something to the effect of if two people love one another they should be allowed get married." The second point runs along the lines of if you are against same-sex marriage you are homophobic and simply dislike homosexuals. This rationale is generally followed by the question why do supporters of traditional marriage hate homosexuals? This question is usually followed with the declaration that those who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots. The declaration of those of us who support the traditional definition of marriage are bigots is generally followed by equating the struggle" for homosexuals to legally be married to the civil rights movement or womans suffrage. This also ties to the third argument being homosexuals are born homosexual. What person would choose such a lifestyle? Thus since they are born homosexual and it is not a choice they should be allowed to legally marry. When one examines and makes the logical extension of these arguments all three are either simply inconsistent and/or absurd.
The first point that needs to be made regarding all these arguments is liberals are claiming society does not have a right to define marriage. If they do believe society has a right to define marriage then they are being hypocritical as this belief runs counter to the argument that if two people love one another they should be allowed to get married. If liberals believe in a legal definition of marriage then they themselves contradict the first argument noted in this essay. If they believe society can define marriage then they are admitting marriage should be defined but they want their definition not the traditional definition of marriage being one woman and one man. Thus if they believe society can define marriage then that is inconsistent with the common retort if two people want to get married they should be allowed to do so. Defining marriage would mean there would still be laws against who can and who cannot get married.
Further regarding the first point the logical extension of the argument means the acceptance of polygamy adult consensual incest and the legal marriage of two people as long as one is of the age of consent. If two people who love each other should be able to get married then laws outlawing polygamy need to be overturned by all state legislatures for who is to say a man or woman cannot love more than one person? All laws regarding the illegality of one marrying a sibling or cousin should be overturned for who is to say a sister and brother or first cousin cannot fall in love with one another? In addition in some states including Ohio where I reside the age of consent is sixteen. Thus if liberal Catholics who believe two people should love one another should be married then a sixteen year old girl should be allowed to marry a 70 year old man for who is to say a sixteen year old cannot fall in love with a seventy year old man?
The second argument is hypocritical as well. If a liberal does not accept the aforementioned scenarios then they are not applying the same logic to their own logic. One who supports traditional marriage need only to ask Catholic supporters of same-sex marriage who use the argument if two people love one another they should be allowed to get married" three questions. Do you support overturning laws regarding adult consensual incest? Do you support overturning laws outlawing polygamy? And do you support overturning laws that restrict children who are of the age of consent but not yet legally an adult at the age of 18 to get married without parental consent?
If a liberal Catholic supporter of same-sex marriage answers no to any of the questions above then they by their own logic are bigots. Why do they hate people who desire to engage in adult consensual incest? Why do they hate people who want to have multiple husbands/or wives? Why do they hate sixteen year olds who desire to marry someone over the age of 18 without parental consent? If supporters of traditional marriage are bigots for not supporting same-sex marriage then proponents of same-sex marriage are bigots unless they answer in the affirmative to all of the questions listed above.
The definition of bigotry is defined by Merriam-Webster as a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people ideas etc. : a bigoted person; especially: a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot). I and the overwhelmingly majority of traditional marriage supporters I know do not hate homosexuals. We simply believe that marriage is a biblical definition of one man and one woman. This is not to say there are not people who hate or discriminate against homosexuals. Indeed there are but they are in the minority especially within the Catholic Church.
However many liberal commentators and supporters speak against the Catholic Church (as well as other religions) on the topic of support of traditional marriage with outright disdain and hatred. Thus obviously supporters of same-sex marriage refuse to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church on this issue. However more than disagreeing with the church many supporters of same-sex marriage have outright animosity towards the Catholic Church and its members who accept the teachings of the church regarding traditional marriage. Who is the bigot in this conversation? One could easily argue based on the application of liberals own arguments supporters of same-sex marriage are anti-Catholic anti-Muslim and anti-any religion that does not support same-sex marriage.
The third argument regarding homosexuality is not a choice and people are born homosexual is not based in fact. As Dr. Michelle A. Cretella noted in the book Breaking Through (Our Sunday Visitor 2012) there have been no scientific studies in the last forty years to support the concept that same-sex attraction is inborn. Again however for the sake of this essay I will grant liberal Catholics who support same-sex marriage the argument that same-sex attraction is indeed inborn because even if it is inborn acting on such attraction is still a choice.
It is possible for one whether straight or homosexual to choose celibacy. One does not have to act on feelings of same-sex attraction. This choice may run against the norm of our current sex-obsessed culture but that is not the point. The point to be made is it is still a choice whether same-sex attraction is inborn or not to act on such attraction. In addition it is a choice to choose not only to engage in the act of homosexual sex but to marry one within the same gender. One is choosing these actions.
Blacks are not choosing to be black they are born black. Females are not choosing to be female they are born female. Thus equating the push to make same-sex marriage legal to womens suffrage or the civil rights movement in the 1960s is the most absurd argument of the three.