CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I don't know if this thread violates the anti-political rule on CAA (if it does, the mods can just lock it and sorry for the inconvenience). I am writing a paper on same-sex marriage for school. But, apparently, we are not allowed to use "irrational" sources for our arguements, such as biblical texts. Well, considering I have a biblical world view, this is kind of hard to figure out. I know there are many other arguements I could use, but I believe that when we disconnect everything from the Bible we really have no firm foundation because then, everything is merely a matter of public opinion and what a majority of people want at one particular time in history. Anyway, any advice would be appreciated.

Oh crap. You certainly are at a bind here.

You could go argue that the Bible is indeed a rational source, but then you'd be straying in a different direction. That will without a doubt cost you points.

Have you considered argueing the rationality of USING Biblical texts to confirm your worldview in the paper?

Angel37 wrote:Have you considered argueing the rationality of USING Biblical texts to confirm your worldview in the paper?

explain

Have you inquired what your professor means by rational/irrational?

You could always argue about the rationality of creating laws that deal in altering religious practices. (Marriage is a religious practice)

The question does make sense. What you are being asked is what the government's position on gay marriage ought to be in the absence of any specific religious doctrine. One can still argue against gay marriage given this constraint by for example discussing it from the point of view of society's right to determine the nature of its fundamental institutions (but this must be balanced against the rights of individual members of society). Alternatively, you could look at it from the point of view of whether such a change in the definition of marriage has a meaningful impact on the social fabric. You may have trouble digging up sound data though if you take this approach.

Well you could always try using Plato's Republic I suppose and argue that in the
perfect society since the end of sex would be to supply new members for the said society than that same sex marriage is in fact illogical and irrational since there is no way of procreation in such a case,not in the normal way.Ergo same sex marriage is illogical and irrational.

Perhaps you could argue from a naturalistic stand point: Homosexuals cannot propogate their own species. Survival of the fittest would dictate that those who are able to reproduce are more fit to survive. It's certainly not the strongest argument, but it might be a little stone you could use to build a better case.

mitsuki lover wrote:Ergo same sex marriage is illogical and irrational.

That's kind of a weak argument, as first of all homosexuality is a small percentage of the population, so there is no danger of this leading to extinction of humankind, and further love is often illogical and irrational, yet it is a good thing. I'm not saying same sex marriage is a good thing, I'm just saying that just because something is illogical and irrational, doesn't make it bad.

Osaka wrote:Homosexuals cannot propogate their own species

The problem with this is it implies homosexuals are a different species...that's not the route he wants to go with this I'm sure.

Mangafanatic wrote:Perhaps you could argue from a naturalistic stand point: Homosexuals cannot propogate their own species. Survival of the fittest would dictate that those who are able to reproduce are more fit to survive. It's certainly not the strongest argument, but it might be a little stone you could use to build a better case.

Hmmm, unless cloning don't work. Still its not my favorite subject. Just a argument that may be worth considering.

How's this for an outline?:

• Introduction
  
  
  • There are two major sides to this issue
    
    
    • Supporters of same-sex marriage
      
    • Opposers of same-sex marriage
      
• Short history on the issue of same-sex marriage
  
• Supporters of same-sex marriage
  
  
  • Claims for their support
    
    
    • To eliminate discrimination and have the same rights as everyone else
      
    • They are able to raise a family just as well as a heterosexual couple
      
    • To receive the same government benefits at heterosexual couples
      
    • Etc...
      
• Opposers of same-sex marriage
  
  
  • Some reasons for the opposition of same-sex marriage
    
    
    • Physiological: Homosexual couples cannot reproduce my any natural means
      
    • The redefinition of marriage will eventually lead to polygamy, bestiality, polyamory, etc., since everyone's wishes must then be granted. This will further weaken this institution.
      
    • Marriage is more than just an emotional attachment to the other person. Marriage is about a man and a woman coming together to raise children (our next generation).
      

[*]My reasons for opposing same-sex marriage

[list]
[*]We need a source of absolute truth or, mainly, all we end up doing is basing our descisions on public opinion and what a certain majority wants at that particular point in history Even if we try to decide by principals such as social justice, who decides what is right? What are these descisions based on?

[*]We need some source of absolute truth. Absolute truth comes from God and is revealed to us in His word

[*]Many people hear the word “religionâ€

sldr4Christ1985 wrote:[*]The redefinition of marriage will eventually lead to polygamy, bestiality, polyamory, etc., since everyone's wishes must then be granted. This will further weaken this institution.

While I can't speak for polygamy, I'd say the argument that gay marriage will lead to bestiality being legal is absurd, as animals cannot sign a legal contract, whereas gay people can.

I think it makes sense and would be a good paper but you don't really state your reasons you just argue for the truth of the bible. And his point is, nathaniel that if we let people do whatever they want then it will lead to worse and worse things

An additional point worth thinking about is how we know whether certain types of behaviours are morally right or wrong? There is a chance this will go over your word limit in having to explain your methods of deducing moral values, but in my limited research into this topic, I have come across arguments that claim homosexual behaviour are the result of natural inclinations and therefore neutral or even acceptable.

Hence it may be helpful to think about whether biologically natural actions automatically render themselves morally neutral or even acceptable (and it might be worthwhile thinking of biologically natural actions that we know to be wrong in order to strengthen your points).

My reasons for opposing same-sex marriage

We need a source of absolute truth or, mainly, all we end up doing is basing our descisions on public opinion and what a certain majority wants at that particular point in history Even if we try to decide by principals such as social justice, who decides what is right? What are these descisions based on?

I think you nailed it there bud. Tying the argument with a stance of ethical relativity may would most defiantly support your argument.

Thought: talk about how children should be raised by one mom + one dad in order to minimize psychological issues.
(but you'd probably want to find research to support this)

Agent Anderson wrote:Thought: talk about how children should be raised by one mom + one dad in order to minimize psychological issues.
(but you'd probably want to find research to support this)

I put a little bit of that in there.

Attached is what I have so far

That's kind of a weak argument, as first of all homosexuality is a small percentage of the population, so there is no danger of this leading to extinction of humankind, and further love is often illogical and irrational, yet it is a good thing. I'm not saying same sex marriage is a good thing, I'm just saying that just because something is illogical and irrational, doesn't make it bad.

Actually, most Western countries are expieriencing popupalion decline due to delayed parenthood, mostly due to working.

I think youve covered everything, but I havent writen a paper for a long time.

Starhammer wrote:And his point is, nathaniel that if we let people do whatever they want then it will lead to worse and worse things

I realize what you're saying, but it's still a non sequitur. Gay marriage would still allow both legal adults to sign a marriage contract. Children are not legal adults, nor are animals]Actually, most Western countries are expieriencing popupalion decline due to delayed parenthood, mostly due to working.[/QUOTE]
True, but even that is among heterosexual couples. What I'm saying is that homosexuality in and of itself is not going to lead to human extinction since they are such a small part of humanity as a whole.