Category Archives: LGBT

flag1

LGBT Hindrance – Analogies

Argument: Marriage is about creating children.
Rebuttal: Should senior citizen couples be able to marry even though they can’t have kids?

The first sentence above is an argument. The second sentence is an analogy. Analogies are often used to help understand arguments. They are different situations that are easy to understand and relate in some way to an argument.

Some LGBT supporters, while using analogies like the one above in favor of their position, reject all analogies against their position. They claim analogies against LGBT arguments are all disanalogies. Disanalogies occur when the related point to an argument is so different that it does not legitimately compare.

Consider the following analogy: homosexuality is natural because it occurs in animals. This analogy implies that what is natural is good. I have a friend whose dog mounted his neighbors dog right on the sidewalk! This is natural for dogs – should it be for humans? The neighbors dog became pregnant and when the first pup popped out she ate it! This is natural for dogs – should it be for humans? Now if one is going to compare the natural behavior of humans with animals, it is invalid to cherry pick only what supports ones point and ignore everything that doesn’t. The comparison here between human morality and animal behavior is a disanalogy.

Valid analogies must relate in some way to the point of an argument. The opening analogy is strong because it analogizes the same point as the argument – marriage requires procreation. The closer an analogy is to the point of an argument, the stronger it is.

Argument: People should be able to marry who they love.
Rebuttal: Should people be able to marry their sibling?

In response, the charge is usually made that gay and incestuous relationships are completely different, therefore the comparison is a disanalogy. Now of course they are different – it’s required to be – it’s an analogy. If they were the same it would not be an analogy. But they are not completely different. Just as it is valid to analogize same-sex marriages with heterosexual senior citizen marriages, it is valid to analogize any type of marriages because they do have similarities.

Consider the follow analogy:

Gay and straight marriages involve two people in a romantic relationship for life.

This analogy is not saying gay and straight marriages are identical. It’s only claiming to have three things in common – two people, romantic relationship, for life.

Gay, straight, and animal marriages involve two people in a romantic relationship for life.

Some animals have life-long mates but none marry. This is a disanalogy.

Gay, straight, and incestuous marriages involve two people in a romantic relationship for life.

This analogy isn’t saying gay marriage is morally the same as incestuous marriage anymore than incestuous marriage is morally the same as straight marriage. It is only comparing three aspects of marriage, which indeed do apply to all three – a valid analogy.

Some claim that non-affirming people of gay relationships are ignorant. Some may be but LGBT supporters who reject all analogies against there position are ignorant as well. Analogies are extremely helpful in understanding arguments and to reject valid analogies hinders their understanding of their own arguments and others.

ThankYouNote

Atheist to Pastors – Thanks!

Hemant Mehta wants to thank pastors. He has spent the past decade or so trying to convince people that religion is more often than not a negative influence on our society, spending time convincing people why God doesn’t exist and why they should leave their churches, even if they are religious.  But nothing he has done has been as effective as pastors who have spoken out against same-sex marriage.

If you are a pastor, here are your choices concerning same-sex marriage:

  1. Do nothing until you have to. You will inevitably.  Meanwhile some members, especially youth, will drop out of church because you’ve not discipled them in this regard. Pew Research has reported that LGBT issues are millennials #1 problem with the church.
  2. Teach and repeat the marriage slogans (one man and one woman, etc.). It’s not working. One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
  3. Cave in. But this is not an option for a faithful pastor.
  4. Cave in if you are not a faithful pastor. This is commonly done in the name of love, but it is not loving to encourage people to sin (1 Cor. 13:6). Sin separates people from the true body of Christ even if they attend church. It even brings into question your love for Christ considering He defined love as obeying His commands (John 14:15). Concerning church attendance, such cooperation with the culture has not helped the mainline denominations.

The following video gives one reason why caving in doesn’t help church attendance.

For help in dealing with this issue in your church, whether you are a pastor, teacher, or in another position of leadership, please contact Garrett.

 

 

 

 

faith-and-reason

Isn’t ‘We Believe as We Believe’ Enough?

The following is a edited portion from Dr. Albert Mohler’s The Briefing from November 11th, 2014. The full recording and transcript is here.

When Krauss [New Atheist] was challenged by people who say:

“Well, religion has been around since the dawn of man. You’ll never change that,”

He responded by saying,

“This issue of gay marriage, it is going to go away, because if you’re a child, a 13-year-old, they can’t understand what the issue is. It’s gone. One generation is all it takes”

[Apparently the slogan “marriage is between one man and one woman” isn’t working with young people.]

Intelligent Christians need to understand that here is someone who hopes the religious faith will disappear; here you have a very keen thinking unbeliever who understands what every Christian parent may not, what many Christian churches evidently do not, and that is that if we are not giving intellectual ammunition for the Christian faith, if we are not moving from mere assertions to moving to arguments with their own young people, we shouldn’t be surprised that they fall prey to exactly what Lawrence Krauss is talking about here. We shouldn’t be surprised if we lose our own young people if we do not give them arguments that go beyond merely ‘believe as we believe.’

For some intellectual ammunition and help, especially as related to LGBT issues, contact Garrett below.