Rebuttal

The blogger of Samson Blinded blogged about the subject of gay marriage a while back. The subject is old and my reply to it is too long, so im going to post it here.

The New Jersey’s court decision that permitted gay marriage has a political
tint. Three Republican-appointed judges issued a deliberately inciting opinion
that calls gay union a marriage. The idea was to convene the urgency of liberal
threat to the basic values, and steer the voters to the Republicans.

The court decision contradicts other decisions, such as New Hampshire’s
Blanchflower case which ruled that same-sex relations are not even sex. The New
Jersey’s judges ignored a crucial point: just why the society offers benefits
and privileges to families? Not because the families tend to have sex often –
otherwise, extra-marital relations would be similarly protected. Not to
encourage warm feelings – otherwise, companies of good old pals who spend
evenings in pubs would be protected, too. Societies protect families for it is
said, Be fruitful and multiply. Societies support families because families
produce children who form the societies. That’s why single mothers are also
supported. Unlike cabbage, same-sex pals do not reproduce, and cannot claim
subsidies and tax cuts intended for families.

(Failure to understand the reason for subsidizing the families has only
economic consequences for the US, but political for Israel. In Israel, we don’t
want just more children – the habitable part of the country is already densely
settled. We want more Jewish children. The politically correct Israeli
government subsidizes Arab families which take full advantage of the Jewish
checks, breed faster than the Jews, and continuously decrease the ratio of Jews
in Israel.)
Gay couples are not oppressed; they do not receive benefits which
were not intended for them in the first place. Bereft of children (and gays
should be positively prohibited from adopting and debauching the children), gay
unions produce no personal, inalienable rights. As such, gay unions need no
statutory regulation like the institution of marriage; gays who wish to have sex
on a regular basis could regulate their committed relationship via contract.

People are neither ethnic-, nor culture-blind. Xenophobia is a natural,
necessary trait that builds the boundaries and cements societies. We do dislike
people with alien habits; specifically, dis-like, do not like, rather than hate.
Could we dislike those who engage in consensual sex with minors? With animals?
With same-sex adults?

Non-reproductive incest is a private business. Societies have no reason
to prohibit a father to have sex with his adult daughter. In the age of
contraception, that sex is even not likely to produce and thus negatively affect
the progeny. Civilized societies do not prohibit sex between mentally challenged
people which may possibly produce mentally challenged progeny. By the same
token, liberal societies cannot prohibit incestuous marriage. Yet they do.

Societal values are developed through centuries and myriad
interactions. The values are neither explicable, nor formally provable. One
option is to accept them as is, the other is to question them all. When
questioned, the values always fail.

Apostle Paul famously struggled with the same problem: having abandoned
the Jewish law, Paul was faced with the need to regulate his communities. He
eventually developed a web of ad hoc ethical rules, arbitrary and no less
restrictive than the Jewish law.

The fact that the ethics is indispensable but impossible to formalize
opens us the way to oppose the leftists. Two millennia ago, the Sophists
developed an approach that won them debates with philosophers who similarly to
modern leftists tried to formalize the ethics. The Sophists logically extended
the views of their opponents to the apparent absurdity.

If gay marriage is permitted, there is no formal reason to prohibit
other non-conventional marriages. Why can’t a father marry his daughter? Why
can’t three – or ten, for that matter – people enter into a marriage? Why can’t
a person marry his lovely sheep?

The New Jersey’s court decided that people are equal, and so have the
equal right to marriage. People are equal regardless of sex, but also regardless
of number. Ten people are free to marry into one big happy family. A man is free
to marry four women, or heck with the sharia – even ten women! A person who did
not find a human soul mate is still equal to everyone else, and the society must
protect his right to marriage – even to a dog. Homosexuality is ostensibly a
natural urge, but so are zoophilia and necromania. Hey, we have a world of
marriage opportunities!
Bizarre as that may sound, file the cases with your
local court to marry your adult daughter, a few female pals, and a dog. Drive
the leftist ideas over the edge. Let the formal justice face the consequences of
its silliness.

You didn't specify why gays should be prohibited from adopting children. Do you have any logical explanation for that, or are you just assuming so? If so, why? You also mention debauching. I suppose by this you mean that the gay parents would make the adopted child gay. You could also argue, like so many others, that for a child living with gay parents limits his or her developement.

There is too little evidence to take those as a fact. Logically speaking, either gay marriages are harmful for the child, or then they are not. The only way to be sure of that is to try and find out. Some might argue that experimenting with children is immoral.

Everything has it's price. The vaccine to smallpox was created by a man who took the vaccine from a cow's festering rash and injected it into her own daughter suffering from smallpox. He had no idea of outcome; either his daughter would heal or die. Granted, he or her daughter didn't have much to lose. But at the time, and even these days it'd be immoral. But was it worth it? Yes it was.

Globally speaking, experimenting with twenty or fifty children is a small price to pay. If the experiment shows that the children grow up to be retarded, the damage is still smaller when allowing gays to adopt in the first place.

Finland has passed a law that allows doctors to make lone women and lesbian partners pregnant. So I suppose in ten years or so we will have evidence what kind of effects lesbian parenting has to children.

As for parents marrying their own children... Yeah. The problem is that the genes don't mix very well and that results in retarded children. You suggest that to prevent this there's contraception. The best contraception, the condom, is only 95% proof or so. The condom might also break. Pills vary from 80% to 90% proof. The only 100% proof method of contraception is celibacy. There only a few people in the world who are able to live in celibacy. Besides, how would the society prevent the daughter getting pregnant by her father intentionally? Should the society force adoption whenever they find out that the girl is pregnant? There are still ways to hide the pregnancy, like moving to another country or so.

Then you mention humans marrying animals. I don't really care about that and I would allow it if it was up to me. To the society there's no harm in humans marrying animals. They can't breed no matter how hard they tried. Marry an animal, a plant, a shoe, whatever. As long as it makes you happy, eh?

Sex with minors. That is something that has been discussed alot, and the general opinion in western society is that the children's brains are not developed enough to fully understand the concept of sex or marriage. Some think that growing up in incestious relationship is harmful, while some argue that there are expections. More study is needed.

Marrying mentally challeged people is a good point. Someone really needs to tackle that subject, but im too tired of typing and I have homeworks to do.