0

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Homosexual couples can get married in all US States and that these marriages are legally equal to the Traditional model of marriage, one man and one woman. Prior to all this I saw many Christians arguing against the redefinition of marriage, but almost solely used their faith and the Bible as their basis.

There are arguments against the idea of homosexual marriages being not equal to heterosexual ones. They more or less revolve around the idea that the reproductive system is the only part of the human body that needs a complementary body to unite with to complete and achieve its end (or purpose). Any other union that cannot complete the system and therefore possibly achieve the purpose of sex is inherently incomplete.

My question is this: Why didn't Christians argue this way? I am Catholic and I have seen my own church reason this way. Why did Protestants not use this, as this could carry weight in a secular court?

  • 4
    We did and we continue to reason similarly. The media only focuses on their side of the issue. How do you expect anything of value to get across with only one side of the argument being broadcast? Even if you argued reasonably with someone the camera would just pan to Fred Phelps and the game is lost becuase he's a soft-target meany. – hownowbrowncow Jul 2 '15 at 16:01
  • Perhaps this question is asked somewhat in ignorance; I had read many news articles over the past few years and it never seemed that anyone argued like this. I may be asking this having only media bias, although I will say I do not read articles from only one news source. – shiningcartoonist Jul 2 '15 at 16:04
  • 3
    Every mainstream news source has dubbed this issue as 'politically correct'* and any argumentation that homosexual marriage is invalid due to biological or social reasoning is discarded as homophobia. Therefore the only public stance one can make without being labeled a bigot is to lean on religious grounds. *note: by political correctness I mean that our contrary group has established that a contrary opinion is invalid in and of itself without the need for argumentation and single words or labels shut down discussions without actual information being processed. – hownowbrowncow Jul 2 '15 at 16:57
  • Additionally in France the anti-homosexual marriage campaign as almost exclusively secularly argued. Which was probably much more effective as one has trouble arguing against the secular opinion with non-secular wordage. – hownowbrowncow Jul 2 '15 at 16:58
  • 1
    If you changed the question slightly to "What arguments were presented to the supreme court against same sex marriage? Did they include 'natural reason'?" and asked on politics.stackexchange.com you will probably get much more useful answers. – 3961 Jul 2 '15 at 19:53
0

Any argument based solely on reason can be argued against. This creates a couple of problems:

  1. We don't know all of the reasons why God commands what he does.
  2. Currently-available scientific and social evidence are not always enough to prove God's will.

The real reason I as a Christian oppose homosexual actions, including homosexual marriage, is because I believe God has warned us that it is sin – and therefore will lead to unhappiness for individuals and for society as a whole. Other reasons are tangential and can be argued against, but faith can't be argued against very easily. Why would I leave the real reason for my opposition out of an argument?

In any debate, we are most convincing when we speak from the heart. Whenever someone speaks truth from their heart, it gives the Spirit an opportunity to testify to anyone willing to listen. And if a person isn't willing to listen, no argument will convince them.

  • "God has warned us that it will lead to unhappiness" Ah, no. They argue that it's sin. Unhappiness is only a byproduct. – curiousdannii Jul 4 '15 at 5:13
  • True, I suppose you could look at it that way. In my theological framework, sin and unhappiness are closely correlated: The idea that God gives us commandments because he wants us to be happy, and by choosing sin we are choosing unhappiness. – Samuel Bradshaw Jul 4 '15 at 5:19
  • The problem with that kind of thinking is that it makes happiness and unhappiness independent of God. This is in no way accepted by all Christians, but many Christians think the focus of law, sin and gospel must be about God himself. Whenever we find our satisfaction or joy in anything other than God that is sin, and ultimately it will turn out to be unsatisfying, because we are made to be satisfied only by God himself. Sin is replacing that satisfaction in God with anything else. The law is therefore about helping us to be satisfied in God, not to just achieve satisfaction. – curiousdannii Jul 4 '15 at 5:23
  • "The real reason traditional Christians oppose homosexual marriage is..." dependent on the Christian. – Matt Gutting Jul 4 '15 at 14:09
  • 1
    You did; but now it becomes an opinion-based answer rather than one that is evidently applicable to Protestants generally. – Matt Gutting Jul 5 '15 at 2:29
0

"Protestant" means a believer in sola fide and sola Scriptura. As such, not only is it possible for a Protestant to use natural law arguments, many have. Although most of the reformers were Divine Command theorists (Luther and Calvin, although Calvin is weird), not all were (natural law was influential among both the Catholic and Protestant American Founders, although with a clear Lockean (Divine Command) influence as well). Many Protestants today are natural law theorists, although not all are.

For information on the Founding Fathers: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=5&article=1001&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional

For an article on Protestants and Catholics regarding Natural Law: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/01/002-protestants-and-natural-law

Christi pax.

-1

Because Protestants are fideists.

Fr. Hardon, SJ, defines "fideism" in his Catholic dictionary as:

A term applied to various theories that claim that faith is the only or ultimate source of all knowledge of God and spiritual things. The name was originally coined by followers of Kant (1724-1804) and Schleiermacher (1768 -1834), both of whom denied the capacity of reason to know God or the moral law with certainty. (Etym. Latin fides, belief; habit of faith; object of faith.)

Protestants believe in sola scriptura; according to them, their private interpretation of Holy Scriptures trumps philosophical arguments based solely on reason.

  • A modern dictionary of Catholic term* yea, totally not biased. – hownowbrowncow Jul 3 '15 at 1:06
  • @hownowbrowncow Why is this question tagged "catholicism" then? – Geremia Jul 3 '15 at 2:38
  • @hownow there is absolutely no reason to be biased against this answer. But it would be better if it gave some examples of Protestants shooting themselves in their collective feet on account of sola scriptura (as well as times its gotten them out of some jams) – Peter Turner Jul 3 '15 at 2:51
  • 2
    Downvoted account of the answer being overbroad. While there are protestants who do ascribe to sola scriptura, I know of many who do not. – brasshat Jul 3 '15 at 8:11
  • Even those who do ascribe to sola scriptura don't then hate reason entirely! Sola scriptura might explain why some prefer scriptural arguments, but it doesn't explain why they would entirely refuse to use other arguments too. (Of course there is no explanation because protestants didn't refuse to use other arguments.) – curiousdannii Jul 3 '15 at 11:42

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.