OFFICIAL SITE

Institute of Marriage

Research & Studies

Calling Something a Marriage Does Not Make It a Marriage

- First the Sin, then Same-Sex Marriage

- Red Herring Argument: Hate the Sinner

- Same-Sex Marriage Timeline

- Percentage of LGBT Marrying

- Straight Fact: No Gay Gene

- Following the "Born Homosexual" Research

- All 47 Judges Say No to Same-Sex Marriage

- Scheme Behind the Homophobic Label

- Relating to Marriage: Builder v. Tear Downer

- Countries Same-Sex Marriage is Legal

 
First the Sin, then
Same-Sex Marriage
September 2016

It seems there cannot be a discussion on same-sex marriage these days without someone bringing up the subject of homosexuality being a sin. The plain fact, homosexuality is a sin.

 

Nowhere in the Bible is there Scripture that legitimizes homosexuality. Whenever the Bible speaks of "homosexuality" it condemns it (Genesis 19:4-9; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:24-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10; and Timothy 1:9-10); in contrast the Bible consistently treats "heterosexuality" as normative (1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 3; et al).

 

Thus, from the standpoint that the Bible condemns homosexual acts (not necessarily saying homosexual temptations are sinful) how should homosexuals (especially those who want to follow God’s Word) address it?

 

There are all sorts of sins and everyday people, whether or not they intend to, commit sin. So, how should homosexuals who acknowledge homosexual acts as sinful address it; and if that can be addressed in all fairness, then maybe with the same degree of honestly we can discuss same-sex marriage.

 
Red Herring Argument:
Hate the Sinner
April 2017

 

The attitude particularly towards Christians who oppose same-sex marriage that God requires them to “hate” all homosexuals, is at best ridiculous (the result of ignorance) or, as is in many incidents, simply a red herring argument.

 

When used as a red herring (fallacy to distract attention from the real issue) it often has attached with it an argumentum ad hominem or attacking the character of someone who has stated their view on something, rather than the view itself.

 

The red herring argument is also compared to making a sweeping statement in hopes that it is true, or in other words stereotyping. The latter also associated with actions of being a hypocrite, since the argument itself is stereotyping others.

 

It is sort of like those who cry the loudest intolerance, themselves are the most intolerant (or bigot); and do not hesitate to use labels like “homophobia” which is another fallacy. See this page, Scheme Behind the “Homophobic” Label.

 

Others with the attitude that Christians because of God must hate all homosexuals often for whatever reasons are simply misinformed. They may even believe it to be true.

 

However, what the Bible actually condemns is homosexual acts, not having homosexual temptations—even Jesus was tempted in other ways, so temptations are not sin. As so many Evangelists, Christians and others say, "Love the sinner but hate the sin." It is widely accepted by Christians (and many others) that is actually the biblical response and what is asked of us.

 

When it comes to same-sex marriage sadly even that it not good enough for many its supporters, who demand that Christians give in all the way and unequivocally accept same-sex marriage. Of course, that would require ignoring God’s Word.

 

Thus, for many the attitude bent on fallacies and red herring arguments will may remain, in less favor of a better informed approach.

Same-Sex Marriage Timeline

March 2017

For an excellent timeline of how same-sex marriage progressed; see Gay Marriage Timeline: History of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, ProCon.org, http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000030#2012-present.

Percentage of LGBT Marrying

June 2017

According to Gallup Poll on June 22, 2017:

 

“Two years after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that states could not prohibit same-sex marriages, 10.2% of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) adults in the U.S. are married to a same-sex spouse. That is up from 7.9% in the months prior to the Supreme Court decision in 2015, but only marginally higher than the 9.6% measured in the first year after the ruling.”

 

At the same time there was a sharp decline in same-sex domestic partnerships. Also, it was noted gays (LGBT men) are more likely to marry than lesbians (LGBT women).

 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_SOCIAL_POLICY_ISSUES&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

 
Straight Fact:
No Gay Gene
October 2016

 

Not that long ago numerous media and printed news reported on a study by UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun, in which he claimed to had discovered "epigenetic marks" strongly linked to male homosexuality—sometimes referred to, incorrectly, as a “gay gene.” 

 

William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara immediately challenged the study. The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) 2015 Annual Meeting confirmed Rice’s suspicions.

 

Reporting from the press release by ASHG, the Daily Wire wrote that "the study been misrepresented in a way that led many publications to announce that a 'gay gene' had been found." Media Misrepresent Gay Gene Study without Contacting Lead Author, The Daily Wire, October 17, 2015; see also, No, Scientists Have Not Found the Gay Gene: The Media is Hyping a Study that Doesn’t Do What it Says it Does, The Atlantic, October 10, 2015.

 

The Daily News went on to say: “But accuracy is not what the study was proving. In fact, the study was proving the opposite of what the public was led to believe: that there is no gay gene.”

 

Unfortunately, that reality was too harsh for the politically correct to accept, because that would mean that little boys who wear makeup are not genetically gay; they are still just little boys wearing makeup. It would diminish the need for a “gay community” and threaten the validity of many males who claim that they are gay.

 

A week before the conference Dr. Ngun, who is openly gay, quit at the lab. Id.

 
Following the
"Born Homosexual"
Research
March 2017

Does the fact that there is no "gay gene" also provide evidence that no one is born homosexual? That is not only a fair question, but a logical one to follow.

 

While older findings—especially those published during the so-called need for political correctness over honest facts era, in research on the matter—points to some people nonetheless are born homosexual, newer research seems to be pointing the other direction.

 

Countless publications recently reported on there is no scientific evidence of someone being born homosexual.

 

For example: "Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the 'born that way' hypothesis, simply are not supported by science" Looking Back on How Science Has Progressed in Sexuality and Gender, Genetic Literacy Project, Sept. 9, 2016; see also, Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological and Social Sciences, The New Atlantis, Journal of Technology & Society, No. 50, Fall 2016, page 7).

 

"Regardless of its political worth, the “born this way” paradigm is not backed up by sufficient scientific data" Gay People Not "Born That Way," Sexual Orientation Not Fixed, RT Report, August 23, 2016.

 

NOTED: This is worth following and in doing so it is anticipated in the future there will be a need to revise this article, as new research going beyond these preliminary findings continues.

ADDENDUM

October 2017

A summary study authored by Dr. Paul McHugh and Dr. Lawrence Mayer of Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine in Baltimore, Md., titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings From the Biological, Psychological and Social Science” reports among other things: (1) people identified as LGBT are not born that way, yet biological sex is innate; (2) gender identity is an elusive concept, and so transgender people do not exist; and (3) it is harmful to so-called confused children to offer them transgender treatment and societal accommodations. Instead, they need non-surgical intervention. See, www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf; and www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/preface-sexuality-and-gender. Immediately the LGBT community deemed the summary study controversial, www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/hrc-sets-sights-johns-hopkins-after-controversial-sexuality-gender-report-n641501; which then opposition pushed back, www.lifesitenews.com/news/editors-push-back-after-gay-adovcacy-group-attacks-journal-over-homosexual. More recently the study was successfully used in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, in Deirdre Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, U.S. Supreme Court No. 16-273. See, www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/16-273-amicus-petitioner-mchugh.pdf.

All 47 Judges Say "No"
to Same-Sex Marriage
September 2017

On June 9, 2016, in Chapin and Charpentier v. France No. 40183/07, 47 judges of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, which make up the full Court of Strasbourg (also referred to as the World Court of Human Rights) ruled there is no right to same-sex marriage.

 

The ruling was an unanimous vote among the 47 judges, and the decision based on a number of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law.

 

Both of the petitioners were French nationals.

 

The case has no legal authority in the United States, though courts may take it under consideration if offered by a party to a civil case.

 

www.humanrightscommission.ky/upimages/publicationdoc/12321127_1468610547_1468610547.PDF

www.lifesitenews.com/…/european-human-rights-court-rejects-…

www.humanrightseurope.org/…/france-judges-reject-same-sex-…/

 
Scheme Behind the
Homophobic Label
April 2017

 

Just try talking about same-sex marriage, not agreeing with it and your reasons, and it not come up the label homophobia and in many cases directed towards you.

 

It has been said that behind the recent creation of the label "homophobia" is a scheme to discriminate and incite hate. Let us look at that.

 

We see first that while "homo" refers to homosexual and "phobia" means fear, certainly the label is less used in ways which reflect that. Instead, more often homosexuals (and others) say it to threaten or discourage others from questioning their behavior, to accuse them of ignorantly or hatefully opposing things like same-sex marriage.

 

In an attempt to get homosexuality accepted in American culture, it was created the label “homophobia" to be applied in pejorative way to anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda to accuse them of being ignorant and hateful towards homosexuals. The intent being to associate homophobia with negative emotional connotation and use the label in such a way as to accuse others—who disagree with the homosexual agenda—of unwarranted prejudice and discrimination.

 

Of course, merely because someone does not agree with aspects of the homosexual agenda, for example same-sex marriage, does not mean they are ignorant and hateful towards homosexuals. However, the message seems to be that a person must agree with same-sex marriage or risk the name calling of being labeled a homophobic.

 

Not agreeing with same-sex marriage is not being fearful of someone, it is rejecting or opposing for moral, religious or other personal reasons, an idea—whereas the label "homophobia" is, many would say, just pure name calling.

Relating to Marriage:
Builder v. Tear Downer

March 2017

It has been asked directed to supporters of same-sex marriage why not be a builder rather than a tear downer; why want to change “marriage” rather than create an equal identity? After all, the whole debate around same-sex marriage is their wanting to change the long traditional and God-given meaning of marriage and forcing it on everyone else—when they can just as easily create something equal calling it a “civil union” or another identity with all the same legal benefits and protections as a marriage.

It has been asked directed to supporters of same-sex marriage why not be a builder rather than a tear downer; why want to change “marriage” rather than create an equal identity? After all, the whole debate around same-sex marriage is their wanting to change the long traditional and God-given meaning of marriage and forcing it on everyone else—when they can just as easily create something equal calling it a “civil union” or another identity with all the same legal benefits and protections as a marriage.

 
Countries Same-Sex
Marriage is Legal

Last Updated
February 2018

There are 31 out of 193 countries recognized by the United Nation (some observers recognize both Vatican City represented by the Holy See and Palestine as countries, not included here); plus parts of Mexico, that legalized same-sex marriage.

 

Those countries in which same-sex marriage is legal, are:

1.  Netherlands (2000)

2.  Belgium (2003)

3.  Spain (2005)

4.  Canada (2005)

5.  South Africa (2006)

6.  Norway (2009)

7.  Sweden (2009)

8.  Portugal (2010)

9.  Iceland (2010)

10. Argentina (2010)

11. Denmark (2012)

12. Brazil (2013)

13. France (2013)

14. Uruguay (2013)

15. New Zealand (2013)

16. England (2014)

17. Scotland (2014)

18. Luxembourg (2015)

19. Greenland (2015)

20. United States (2015)

21. Ireland (2015)

22. Colombia (2016)

23. Finland (2017)

24. Germany (2017)

25. Malta (2017)

26. Australia (2017)

27. Bermuda (2017) Reinstated 2018; on appeal.

28. Austria (2019)

29. Taiwan (2019)

30. Ecuador (2019)

31. Costa Rica (2020)

 

In Mexico 12 of 31 states (the first in 2009) legalized same-sex marriage.

PENDING

On January 9, 2018, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issued a decision recognizing same-sex marriages. The decision could impact as many as 20 countries.

 

The decision came in response to a petition submitted in 2016 by Costa Rican, which states it will comply with it (and is expected to formally do so).

 

Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay and some parts of Mexico, already recognize same-sex marriages.

 

For other members of the IACHR which presently do not recognize same-sex marriage, it is a wait-and-see whether they will comply with the decision. Those countries are: Barbados, Bolivia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Suriname.

 

www.reuters.com/article/us-latinamerica-lgbt/latin-american-human-rights-court-urges-same-sex-marriage-legalization-idUSKBN1EZ020

OUR OBJECTIVE

Collecting information and facts, separating it from misconception and fallacies, for real knowledge and seeking the truth, to say what is already known or needs to be known—in absence of politically correct and other unjust demands.   

COPYRIGHT © 2017

It should be assumed that a particular article or material has copyright protections. Permission to reprint or copy a particular article or material from this website is hereby given to individuals and nonprofit organizations

CONTACT & COMMENTS

Jerry Krause,  President                 

Marcia Martinez, Vice President

© 2023 by HARMONY. Proudly created with Wix.com