David, an atheist who is dedicated to exposing Christianity for what it is, has begun a new blog that I discovered quite by accident.

Though he deleted the post that this series is replying to, I am still running my series.

David lays out the following argument in favor of gay marriage:

1. Homosexuality is not unnatural. (answered)
2. Neither homosexuality nor its acts have been proven inferior to heterosexuality or its acts.
3. Marriage is a basic human right.
4. Homosexual unions are unfairly not being given full and equal rights as heterosexual unions.
5. Therefore, homosexual marriages with full and equal rights should be legalized and put into effect.

Premise (2) pretty much deserves a rhetorical “Are you kidding me?” in reply and nothing more.

David’s incoherent explanation:

According to the American Psychological Association, it has officially been declared that homosexuality is not a choice or a decision. (source)

Which we already acknowledged in the refutation of premise (1).  The issue with premise (1) is that homosexuality was immoral, not that it is “unnatural;” it is certainly found within nature and is likely a part of our human nature.

But that doesn’t make it “good.”

Now, this premise takes it that we haven’t proven it “inferior,” but it never takes the time to define what would constitute the act being inferior.  Because then it followed with a fancy shifting of the burden of proof:

The APA has stated that homosexuality is not a choice and has pointed out that homosexual acts themselves are clearly not. While some view this as a reason to be against homosexual marriage, I submit that this is a very valid reason to before homosexual marriage. Here is why: The fact that expecting homosexuals to repress sexual urges is just as unfair as expecting heterosexuals to repress their sexual s on simple logic grounds. It has been determined that neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is conscious decisions. CON needs to give reasons why they are immoral. Therefore, logically speaking, one should not expect to repress any resulting desires (within reason) whilst the other is not expected to.

Neither the nature nor the acts are choices according to the APA.  This is followed by a complaint that it is unfair to expect homosexuals to be celibate.  Finally, the goal posts are shifted to our side (a favorite atheist tactic): if we say it’s immoral, we must prove that it is immoral.

All of this is a nice rabbit trail that I’m not going to follow.  Instead, I’m going to come back to what the original point posits, which is that homosexual orientation has never been proven inferior to heterosexual union.

What does that even mean?

If we use the typical atheist definition of “good” and “evil,” we are usually faced with either personal preference or utilitarianism.  Personal preference, of course, would mean that almost anything that the person “prefers” to be moral is moral.  It’s difficult to argue anything objectively under this model of morality.

However, under utilitarianism, there exists several valid criticisms of homosexuality.

We can speak of the vagina’s natural flow of lubricant that makes it easier to penetrate, and there a mutual pleasure is obtained.  The homosexual act is rather one-sided, though anal sex (I’m told) is an acquired taste.  So while this is a valid reason, it can be easily challenged by opponents.

This also excludes the utility of oral sex, which I believe pays greater dividends than vaginal sex for both parties.  (That may have been the nerdiest and most philosophical way to say “Dude, give me a nice 69 over sex any day!”)

Producing children is where the real utility of sex lies.  In fact, the heterosexual union is the only one that can produce children without thousands of dollars of medical expenses or surrogacy.  This automatically makes a heterosexual union superior by any sense of utilitarianism.

It’s impossible to argue for the superiority of heterosexuality by subjective personal preference, but utilitarianism comes down on the side of heterosexuality.  And it goes further than just the production of children: When fathers and mothers are involved in a child’s life, there is a dramatic difference in child academic achievement and social development.

Said Dr. David Popenoe, “Fathers are far more than just ‘second adults’ in the home.  Involved fathers bring positive benefits to their children that no other person is as likely to bring.”

Children of active and involved fathers experience better educational outcomes.  They have higher IQs, better cognitive and linguistic abilities, and start school with better academic readiness and superior coping skills to deal with academic pressures.  Further, children whose fathers play with them are more comfortable in the world they live in and explore it with more curiosity and vigor.  Children with less-involved fathers are more withdrawn and antisocial.

What about when you put the father and mother together in a healthy relationship?  According to Popenoe, a good marriage is going to make a good father a better father, and a good mother a better mother.  Sons of respectful fathers are far less likely to behave in an aggressive manner toward woman, and have a clear grasp of how to treat women in a relationship.  Daughters of the same type of father see how a woman should be treated and thus are more likely to have a healthy marriage themselves, free from abusive or violent men.

Verify the above research at the Child Welfare Information Gateway.  Also check this article for a summary of the risks of homosexual parenting, and the manipulation of science to try to show it to be at least as good as heterosexual parenting.

The homosexual marriage would deny a developing child the benefits of one of the parents — either the father or the mother.  Therefore, this premise fails to establish what it states.  Heterosexual families are demonstrably superior, even necessary to producing well-adjusted children.

Tomorrow, we will discuss the next premise and present a purely secular argument against gay marriage that will build upon what we have covered here — the superiority of the heterosexual family.