He mentions, as an instance, the possibility of making this kind of
argument against gay marriage.
You are clearly trying to build a strawman
argument against gay marriage.
For the record, this in no way is
an argument against gay marriage and as an atheist I find it ridiculous that this is actually a big debate we're having in our country, let alone that there is just an incredible amount of opposition.
The fact that you can't figure out how to write «psychiatrists» or even «shrinks», but have to use the pathetic «physic», which doesn't make any sense at all, is evidence that you're not bright enough to make a cogent
argument against gay marriage.
Just as the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 undermined a key part of the conceptual framework that made potentially fruitful heterosexual intercourse the only acceptable kind of sex, so the gradual degradation in the popular understanding of marriage makes it very difficult for many people to conceptualise the Catholic
argument against gay marriage.
There is no religious
argument against gay marriage period.
Biblical passages against ho.mose.xuality do not provide a compelling
argument against gay marriage (for reasons I can not go into here).
A compelling
argument against gay marriage must begin with the premise that same - gender se.xu.al preference is a natural, healthy and moral orientation.
The argument against gay marriage isn't that it has a harmful effect to anyone else but instead that it is against certain religious beliefs.
What this has shown is a lack of any legal
argument against gay marriage or gay behavior... only religious ones.
Kelly brought up a recent conversation she had with Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, and said that he didn't have a compelling
argument against gay marriage.
The arguments against gay marriage are largely religious ones.
Arguments against gay marriage are theologically fraught, and Christians and Jews who try to mount biblically or theologically based arguments will find themselves ignored or denounced by secular gatekeepers precisely because they offer biblically and theologically based arguments.
Further, there are strong and logical
arguments against gay marriage / same - sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible.
The arguments against gay marriage are baseless.
Not exact matches
When it comes to
gay marriage, judges often label legal
arguments against it as «religious» — and then summarily dismiss them because they are religious.
And if it turns out that legalizing
gay marriage would contribute to the problem, wouldn't that be a strong
argument against it?
One of the main
arguments used by advocates of
gay «
marriage» is that the current definition of
marriage (as pertaining exclusively to man and woman) breaches the principle of equality and thus discriminates
against same sex couples.
David Quinn, a Catholic journalist and commentator, and Neil Addison, a specialist barrister in religious freedom, spoke for approximately 15 minutes each, ably giving
arguments against the legalisation of
gay «
marriage»; a question time session followed.
While I'm not really
against gay marriage, the author's
argument doesn't quite reach me.
I'm saying that, without religious objections to
gay marriage, is there any other
argument that would be posed
against it?
You are quite right in pointing out that I not only make a strong case
against gay marriage and
against abortion but also carefully delineate the
arguments from the other side.
Rudy Giuliani said Obama's decision to come out on
gay marriage undercuts the flip - clop
argument Democrats like to use
against Romney.
One of the cases being heard in Belfast will be Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd, in which the Justices will hear
arguments on whether a bakery directly discriminated
against a customer on the grounds of sexual orientation when the bakery said they could not fulfil an order for a cake with «Support
Gay Marriage» written on it because of their religious beliefs.