I have a few questions for the pro-homosexual practice crowd and same-sex “marriage” advocates. I have no issues with them attempting to actually answer the following questions, feel free, but I’m also respectfully challenging them to ponder these questions themselves….
(1.) Why do many homosexual activist groups like GLSEN teach that sexuality is fluid when children and teens claim they like the opposite sex or are not even interested in sex, but when a child or teen says he or she is attracted to the same sex, then sexuality is all of the sudden fixed?
(2.) What are the scientifically observable elements of sexuality besides the sexual organs and the associated chemical and hormonal processes?
(3.) When you ask the rhetorical question “when did you choose to be straight?,” can you please tell us how does pointing to something that has never been under dispute and what is responsible for our existence (man-woman relationships/marriage) make a positive case for homosexual practice being normal, natural, and healthy?
(4.) Why is self-evident biology of man (XY) and woman (XX) just a “state of mind,” but homosexual feelings and desires are incapable of being subjected to the self-determination and free will exercise of changing one’s mind?
(5.) It is already true that every adult can marry another adult of the opposite sex….can they not? So if every adult person already can marry another adult of the opposite sex, how is not redefining marriage a form of discrimination?
(6.) If homosexuality is about love and not about sex, why can’t any two or more adults who claim to love each other get the same legal marriage benefits that same sex couples will get via legalizing homosexual/genderless “marriage?”
(7.) Why do liberals and homosexual advocates commit what is called the “taxi-cab fallacy?” Why do they use faulty logic to get what they want, but will then avoid taking their ideology to its logical end? Isn’t granting marriage to any and all adult relationships the logical end of taking the “marriage is only about adults and their love” ideology to its logical end? If the homosexual activist approves of two brothers or two sisters having sex and/or getting married, aren’t they revealing to the world that they themselves have no moral standards? And if they do NOT approve, doesn’t that make them what they often accuse Christians of being….complete hypocrites?
(8.) When two women claim, via homosexual “marriage,” that they are capable of having the same relationship as a man and woman do, does that not imply that every man’s contribution to relationships, marriage, and family is replaceable and unnecessary? Is that not a form of discrimination against men, and the fatherhood only men can provide, based on their biological sex?
(9.) When two men claim, via homosexual “marriage” that their relationship is just as much a relationship or marriage as a man-woman committed relationship, does that not implicitly dismiss any contribution of every woman, thus also claiming women are not essential to relationships, marriage, and family? Is that not a form of discrimination against women, and the motherhood only women can provide, based on their biological sex?
(10.) Can you also please tell us how redefining marriage to make biological parenting optional and unnecessary won’t encourage more instances of this form of discrimination?
(11.)…and as a result, won’t DELIBERATELY deprive children their right to be raised by both a loving mother and father?
(12.) Not every marriage produces children, but every child has a biological mother and father. By redefining marriage to mean that those biological connections as unnecessary, are we not teaching society that children are commodities for adult desires, and that marriage is not about the children’s needs?
(13.) Homosexual activists like to point to man-woman dysfunctional marriages, rampant divorce, and abusive man-woman parents. How does that argument justify homosexual practice and redefining marriage?
(14.) If it is true that there is an epidemic of victimization and violent persecution of people with homosexual inclinations and behavior, how does that justify homosexual practice and redefining marriage?
(15.) If you’re only attracted to one sex and not the other, you are admitting that there is a difference between male and female. While this truth is self-evident, same sex “marriage advocates imply that there is really no difference between the two sexes when it comes to parenting. So how can you acknowledge there’s a difference between the sexes when it comes to your romantic and sexual desires, but not when it comes to child-bearing and child-rearing?
(16.) Should the burden of proof be on the people who believe that a loving home with a mother and father is best for children, or should it be on the people who believe that a “loving” home that DELIBERATELY denies a child of either a mother or father is best for children?
(17.) Does anybody remember when people with homosexual attractions were taken from their homeland in massive numbers, sold like property, systematically dehumanized, forced to sit in the back of the bus, forced to use separate water fountains and bathrooms, attacked with fire hoses, forced to work in fields or be beaten/killed with impunity, denied their right to vote, systematically segregated by force of law and denied services, and tortured & lynched in daylight public spectacles with the whole town turning out, women and children included, to cheer it on, take body parts as souvenirs, and pose for pictures, smiling next to the remains. Does anybody remember that? So the one man and one woman marriage requirement in marriage licensing are JUST LIKE what the Loving v. Virginia case struck down? Is melanin a feeling like homosexual attraction? That is, since homosexual attractions when acted out results in kissing, touching, and sexual behavior, can you please tell us what black skin color results in when acted out?
(18.) I understand that “sexual orientation” refers to romantic or sexual preference. So what scientific method is used to show that “sexual orientation” is real? That is, what is the empirical evidence that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, has its own DNA, that sexual attraction never fluctuates, and homosexuality can easily be measured? Where is “sexual orientation” located? On the liver? The earlobe? The pancreas? If we have a “sexual orientation” why can’t doctors identify our “sexual orientation” when we are born? Do I get it at Walmart in a bucket? Can I get prescription shots of it at my local pharmacy? And does proof of the existence of “sexual orientation” mean that the behavior that flows from it, should be affirmed, encouraged? If “sexual orientation” exists, can you please show me a picture of one? If it is invisible, what kind of instrument do you use to measure it? Electricity is measured by voltage meters. Thoughts can be measured with lie detector devices, and with medical equipment. Meteorologists have instruments to measure wind. Where’s the MRI and/or CAT scan data for “sexual orientation?”
(19.) Can you really not see you have placed blind faith into something very abstract and highly ambiguous? Can you really not see that “sexual orientation” is a concept that takes more faith than logic and reason to believe in? Can you not see that “sexual orientation” is essentially a magic skydaddy?
(20.) Keeping the above questions in mind, how is the homosexualist worldview not a selfish and self-defeating worldview?
(21.) Finally, if anybody bothers to read articles with comment sections from pro-homosexual sites, you’ll notice Christians and others who disagree with homosexual practice and redefining marriage rarely to never post comments under the articles on their sites. The fact that almost every conservative Christian site receives an onslaught of attacks (ad hominems, straw man, non-sequiturs, name-calling, etc.) on their comment sections and Facebook threads, how does that not show the foundation for their worldview is on shaky ground? How does that not reveal that they are the ones with a lot to prove, even though they disingenuously act as if the burden of proof is on that which has never been under dispute?
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.