# Presuppositional refutation of gay marriage



## cupotea (May 25, 2004)

I am finding more and more that the presuppositional method of apologetics is INCREDIBLY useful! Today in my english class, we got on the topic of same sex marriage. We got onto the topic of whether or not homosexuality was genetic. My professor said it was. During our discussion, I said something along these lines:

(Directed at areligious people in our class, and my professor)

&quot;I don't understand how anyone can justify homosexual behavior from an atheistic and evolutionistic worldview. Natural selection is the idea that only those organisms that are most fit to reproduce will survive and pass on their genes, and homosexuals are the absolute arch-nemesis of beneficial natural selection. If evolution were true, then homosexuality would never have survived as a gene to be passed on through history.&quot;

My professor agreed with me and said he didn't have an answer to that. No one in the class did, either.

Further, (didn't say this in class) those who believe in any of the major world religions and adhere somewhat strictly to a major religious text would believe homosexuality is sin. It is only those that believe that there is a God, but don't care to follow Him, that could *possibly* justify homosexuality, though it wouldn't be a very good justification.

Anyway, I know this doesn't address the fact that Christianity is the only world-and-life view that makes reality intelligible, but I thought it was interesting how God has taught me to reason presuppositionally. It's taught me to think in such different ways, and has been so helpful!


----------



## Irishcat922 (May 25, 2004)

That seems to be the logical out come of humanistic worldviews. That is a good point about homosexuality and the evolutionist.
On another note I was up early yesterday with my baby girl, and her and I happened across an interesting show on evolution. It seems some scientists have found some dinosaur bloodcells and these evolutionists did not seem to know how to handle it. It seems that it is a scientific immpossibility that a blood cell under any circumstance will ever survive more than ten thousand years. They attempted to try to explain it, but their argumennts seemed pretty foolish. I found it very fascinating, that evolutionists don't know how to handle real scientific facts even when they are staring them in the face.


----------



## JonathonHunt (May 25, 2004)

Its all good. I have really enjoyed this thread so far!

How easy it can be to demolish the fortresses of those who hate our God, because they are built on sand. We depend on God even in these debates, though, as we are just flawed humans as our opponents are, and one mistake can really mess us up and discredit our testimony!

Anyway, more! more!


----------



## Ianterrell (May 25, 2004)

Nice one.


----------



## blhowes (May 25, 2004)

The presuppositional method of apologetics seems to work well when talking about gay marriage with the more intellectual types of people, especially those who aren't personally involved with the &quot;gay lifestyle&quot;. I was just wondering if you also find it useful when talking with others who aren't quite so intellectual, who aren't so interested in thinking logically, and who are gay? I'm sure you've probably seen these people at the gay rallies, screaming at the opposition because they're &quot;homophobes&quot;. Can the presuppositional method be used to break down some barriers with these people too? Have you ever been able to reason with them?

Bob


----------



## Ianterrell (May 25, 2004)

Bob,

There is no logical box you can push a sinner into. They are dedicated to being logically inconsistent because of their resistance. However there are method's of highlighting those inconsistencies and then revealing the consistency of the christian world-view. 

In a situation like that I'm not sure I would bother with they're prattle. I'm not afraid of homosexuality, I hate homosexuality because it is sin. I'm not sure I would even be at a political rally. I'm not interested in that kind of thing. But it seems fairly obvious that the gay who is accusing me of intolerance, is a fool. Tolerance does not mean approval. But that is exactly what they take it to mean. They don't want my tolerance they want my praise. Which means they want me to agree with their sins, they are making just as much of a moral judgment as I am. It's just that I have a justification for my judgment, God's word, and they have their flimsy subjective opinion. And if there was no true standard for judgment then in the first place they have no valid reason to declare their sinful lifestyle &quot;good&quot; to begin with.


----------



## blhowes (May 25, 2004)

[b:3cf419e05d]Ian wrote:[/b:3cf419e05d]
However there are method's of highlighting those inconsistencies and then revealing the consistency of the christian world-view
[b:3cf419e05d]and Paul wrote:[/b:3cf419e05d]
Actually, presuppositional apologetics is not for the intellectual people... it can be used on ALL people. 

Now that's good to hear. It really makes me want to read about and try to learn the discipline. It sounds like it could be very useful. 

Bob


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (May 25, 2004)

Dont remember where I found this.


--------------------------------------------------

A scene at City Hall in San Francisco

&quot;Next.&quot;

&quot;Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.&quot;

&quot;Names?&quot;

&quot;Tim and Jim Jones.&quot;

&quot;Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.&quot;

&quot;Yes, we're brothers.&quot;

&quot;Brothers? You can't get married.&quot;

&quot;Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?&quot;

&quot;Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!&quot;

&quot;Incest?&quot; No, we are not gay.&quot;

&quot;Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?&quot;

&quot;For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects.&quot;

&quot;But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples
who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay,
you can get married to a woman.&quot;

&quot;Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman.
I want to marry Jim.&quot;

&quot;And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us
just because we are not gay?&quot;

&quot;All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next.&quot;

&quot;Hi. We are here to get married.&quot;

&quot;Names?&quot;

&quot;John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.&quot;

&quot;Who wants to marry whom?&quot;

&quot;We all want to marry each other.&quot;

&quot;But there are four of you!&quot;

&quot;That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,
Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves
June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that
we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.&quot;

&quot;But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.&quot;

&quot;So you're discriminating against bisexuals!&quot;

&quot;No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it's just for couples.&quot;

&quot;Since when are you standing on tradition?&quot;

&quot;Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.&quot;

&quot;Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights!
The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection
under the law. Give us a marriage license!&quot;

&quot;All right, all right. Next.&quot;

&quot;Hello, I'd like a marriage license.&quot;

&quot;In what names?&quot;

&quot;David Deets.&quot;

&quot;And the other man?&quot;

&quot;That's all. I want to marry myself.&quot;

&quot;Marry yourself? What do you mean?&quot;

&quot;Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to
marry
the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.&quot;

&quot;That does it! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!&quot;
-------------------------------------------------------------

[Edited on 5-25-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]


----------



## cupotea (May 26, 2004)

*Cal Poly Current Events...*

There is a big hill behind my university. On it is the Cal Poly &quot;P&quot;, a large P that is usually painted white. One week out of the year (this week), the Gay, Lesbians, and Bisexuals United club paints that P rainbow. When that happens, the school daily newspaper is swamped with opinion letters for and against the painting of the &quot;P&quot;. Some of these letters say that disallowing homosexuals to express themselves in such a manner is discriminatory. They say, &quot;We're homosexual, and we're not going anywhere. We're here to stay.&quot;

I sent the following opinion letter in to the Mustang Daily newspaper today to briefly address homosexuality and the painting of the &quot;P&quot;:
----------------------------------------
Dear Editor-

Hi, I'm Ken, president of the Mutual Dismemberment club. We are a club that enjoys cutting off each other's fingers, hands, and arms. Oh, don't worry, it's completely consensual. Anyway, I was wondering if my club could paint the &quot;P&quot; next week to represent our club. I mean, we enjoy our practice, and it doesn't affect anyone other than those who happily, consensually, participate. It would be discriminatory to keep us from doing so. The Mutual Dismemberment club is here, and we aren't going anywhere!

Note: I do not approve of &quot;mutual dismemberment&quot;. I created this 
hypothetical club to illustrate this: just because one or more people happily 
and consensually participate in a certain activity that doesn't affect those not involved, does not mean that such an activity is morally commendable or acceptable.
------------------------------------

Valid / Invalid, Strong/Weak? Thoughts?


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 8, 2004)

Ken,

Personally, I don't know if your argument would stand up under closer scrutiny. I'm having a difficult time figuring out how you make the connection between natural selection and necessary heterosexuality. The professor could have just as easily said that we are continuing to evolve, and that would include the development of technology that allows for artificial insemination.

Also, I think you'll be hard-pressed to demonstrate that homosexuality is wrong apart from the Bible. According to Scripture, the only reason why homosexuality is wrong is because God says it's wrong. Likewise, that can be our only real basis for condemning it.

AnonRex


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 9, 2004)

[quote:4673f7355d][i:4673f7355d]Originally posted by AnonymousRex[/i:4673f7355d]
Ken,

Personally, I don't know if your argument would stand up under closer scrutiny. I'm having a difficult time figuring out how you make the connection between natural selection and necessary heterosexuality. The professor could have just as easily said that we are continuing to evolve, and that would include the development of technology that allows for artificial insemination.

Also, I think you'll be hard-pressed to demonstrate that homosexuality is wrong apart from the Bible. According to Scripture, the only reason why homosexuality is wrong is because God says it's wrong. Likewise, that can be our only real basis for condemning it.

AnonRex [/quote:4673f7355d]
I think his point was that an evolutionary/atheist worldview cannot account for a homosexual gene. If evolution is true, then the homosexual gene would have died out because it would not propogate species in accordance with natural selection. Correct me if I'm misundertanding you Ken.

The only criticism an evolutionist could respond to this is that the homo gene is a mutation. And if he's a consistent atheist, then he'll say, it's a mutation that will die out on its own due to natural selection so &quot;let them be.&quot;


----------



## a (Jun 9, 2004)

i think i see where AnonRex is coming from though... The homo defendant might claim that humans are developing a stronger trait by slowing acquiring the ability to reproduce in a single-sex environment... it's just that the process of acquiring this trait is not yet complete...

i guess he (the homo) could further argue that this is the first time in known history that this would have yet been possible, since humans are now &quot;advanced&quot; enough socially to assist the process... in that i mean, while homos (homoes?) are going through this slow and gradual process (probably for the next few hundred thousand years), they can rely on us straight people to socially support them by providing such services as social acceptance and adopting the children of reproducing couples...

so i guess i solved it... homos are parasites, and they have to survive on the fruits (no pun intended) of us straight people...

[Edited on 6-9-2004 by ace]


----------



## AnonymousRex (Jun 10, 2004)

Ace,

[quote:82796ca03e]so i guess i solved it... homos are parasites, and they have to survive on the fruits (no pun intended) of us straight people...[/quote:82796ca03e]

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but to suggest that homosexuals are &quot;parasites&quot;, one must assume that heterosexuals demand something in return for allowing them to live off of our &quot;fruits&quot;. Since most of them work, generate wealth and stimulate the economy by spending their earnings, I would hesitate putting them into that category. 

AnonRex


----------



## cupotea (Jun 10, 2004)

Thanks Patrick, that's exactly what I meant.


----------



## a (Jun 11, 2004)

[quote:d17892563a][i:d17892563a]Originally posted by AnonymousRex[/i:d17892563a]
Ace,

[quote:d17892563a]so i guess i solved it... homos are parasites, and they have to survive on the fruits (no pun intended) of us straight people...[/quote:d17892563a]

I don't mean to be nit-picky, but to suggest that homosexuals are &quot;parasites&quot;, one must assume that heterosexuals demand something in return for allowing them to live off of our &quot;fruits&quot;. Since most of them work, generate wealth and stimulate the economy by spending their earnings, I would hesitate putting them into that category. 

AnonRex [/quote:d17892563a]


actually, i used &quot;parasites&quot; purposefully...


symbion: An organism associated with another in symbiosis

parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.


i guess i used &quot;parasites&quot; in the context of child bearing only... but one could also argue the symbionic relationship...


(to clarify: i was playing devil's advocate, and in no way do i believe or agree with this position...)


----------



## unlearnedlearner (Jul 1, 2004)

[quote:efcf1ec175][i:efcf1ec175]Originally posted by AnonymousRex[/i:efcf1ec175]
Ken,

Personally, I don't know if your argument would stand up under closer scrutiny. I'm having a difficult time figuring out how you make the connection between natural selection and necessary heterosexuality. The professor could have just as easily said that we are continuing to evolve, and that would include the development of technology that allows for artificial insemination.

Also, I think you'll be hard-pressed to demonstrate that homosexuality is wrong apart from the Bible. According to Scripture, the only reason why homosexuality is wrong is because God says it's wrong. Likewise, that can be our only real basis for condemning it.

AnonRex [/quote:efcf1ec175]


Well, I think the whole evolution theory of NATURAL selection begins to break down rather rapidly when you include ARTIFICIAL in the argument. You are suddenly including something other than NATURE in the selection process.

The sodomites need to demonstrate the meaning of marriage in their worldview. I also find it funny that homos used to pride themselves in rejecting the bourgeois culture, marriage, and loved feminism, and now they are in bed together promoting that evil patriarchal system of marriage. I think our debate with them should revolve around their blatant hypocrisy and hatred of nature. Besides, lets just chalk up homophobia to a gene and say the one that hates homos can't help. Also, push them to defend marriage against bestiality on their presuppositions. Long story short, they can't do it. They suddenly appeal to &quot;tradition&quot;, &quot;culture&quot; and normative ethics.

I realize all of this would need to be qualified, but Paul speaks of homosexuality being against nature/exchanging natural affections, etc. So, yes, it is difficult to show that anything is wrong beyond the worldview demonstrated in Scripture, but since it is true the truth of its content is evident in everything.

&quot;The fool says in his heart...&quot;

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by unlearnedlearner]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jul 3, 2004)

Given Ken's original argument, would it be safe to say that the argument could also apply to persons with diseases like Downs Syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, etc.? These diseases would have died out due to natural selection as well?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 3, 2004)

[quote:d1c254c387][i:d1c254c387]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:d1c254c387]
Given Ken's original argument, would it be safe to say that the argument could also apply to persons with diseases like Downs Syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, etc.? These diseases would have died out due to natural selection as well? [/quote:d1c254c387]

Again, those would fall under the mutation category. In an evolutionary worldview these disease could still pop up but they would not endure because they rarely if ever can reproduce. So natural selection would still filter them out.


----------

