Roxeanne asked socially conservative bloggers to write a non-religious case against same-sex marriage. I’ll make a few points here, but the good news is that the Wintery Knight did a more thorough and masterful job in A secular case against gay marriage. I highly encourage you to read and bookmark it. The case against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” is not that hard to make, but sadly too many conservatives don’t prepare themselves and fall prey to soundbites. It is their fault that places like New York voted this in.
First, my basic points. These are not complicated, folks.
1. By nature and design, one man / one woman unions produce the next generation. That is why the government is involved in these relationships. Just because some marriages don’t produce children doesn’t mean that the government doesn’t have an interest in encouraging the relationships that by nature and design do produce children.
2. Only one man / one woman unions can provide a mother and a father to a child, the ideal for any child. This should be self-evident to any observer.
3. “Marriage” was a word created to describe these unions. LGBTQX people have a right to live as they choose, but they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for society. Please note: These people are welcome to get “married” in any number of apostate churches. They can set up house and live together. We are just saying that the government has no reason to affirm or regulate these relationships.
4. Saying that “marriage” applies to gays and lesbians isn’t a little different than the real definition of “a union of a man and a woman,” it is the opposite. It is saying that marriage is not just the union of a man and a woman, it is the union of anything we want it to be.
5. The arguments used to justify “same-sex marriage” support polygamy as well. It isn’t a slippery slope argument, it is a cliff argument, where all the reasoning is already in place to justify other perversions of marriage.
6. “Same-sex marriage” has already impacted religious freedoms and will continue to do so. This isn’t a religious argument per se, in that it isn’t saying “The Bible says ____,” but it is an argument about how government recognition of these unions pits the government against religions.
This is very important. As noted here, the bill specifically says that “marriage is a fundamental human right,” but then goes on to give exemptions to religious organizations for having to recognize that right. But how can that be? What religion could have its views trump other fundamental human rights and justify, say, slavery in the U.S.?
Prediction: The law will stand but the religious exemption will get cut out. The people who held out for the exemption behaved foolishly and naively.
7. These unions are bad for kids in many ways. They inevitably result in 4-5 year olds being told how “normal” these relationships are. They lead to adoption agencies closing rather than have to place children with gay or lesbian couples (that is premeditated child abuse).
8. Common sound bites about hospital visitation, estate taxes, etc. can be dealt with without undermining marriage. For example, estate taxes are ghoulish. You do not want the government to profit when you die! So abolish them for everyone.
9. Don’t let them get away with sloppy slogans about “rights.” They have the same rights as everyone else: To marry someone of the opposite sex. I’m not trying to be cute here, I’m just pointing out that if they don’t want to exercise that right we don’t have to make up a new one for them.
10. Don’t let them get away with sloppy slogans about loving whomever they want. Again, no one is saying they can’t love anyone they like. Sadly, sound bites like that are repeated ad nauseum by people who should know better.We’re the ones staying out of their relationships. They are the ones asking for government affirmation.
11. Don’t let them get away with comparisons to interracial marriages. Skin color is moral neutral. Sexual behavior is not.
Summary: While LGBTQX people are free to have these relationships, we are merely saying the government has no need to affirm or validate them.
Aside from the secular arguments, if anyone wants to know what God says about marriage and these relationships, it is very clear. He invented marriage. Any church that disagrees with this isn’t a church, it is an organization trying to destroy the real church (that is, those who authentically follow Jesus). They are actually doing you a favor in being so obvious. Churches that promote same-sex unions are merely wolves in sheep’s clothing who took off the sheep’s clothing. Hey, maybe they were getting too warm or something.
- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
- 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
- 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
- 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Now, a few tidbits from Wintery’s piece (again, read it all!). There are sources for all of this. Emphasis added.
Claim: about 58% of traditional marriages last longer than 20 years.
Claim: about 5% of same-sex unions last longer than 20 years.
Claim: 85% of married women and 75.5% of married men report being faithful to their spouses. For homosexual males, the number is 4.5%
Look at the rates of violence in these relationships! If these were anything other than politically correct relationships the media would be all over this. I’d wager that these are a far bigger problem than “hate crimes.”
Rates of intimate partner violence
Any advocates of SSM should be required to read these links:
Here are a few more examples of this infringement on civil society and business:
- Gay manager at Cisco Systems gets Dr. Frank Turek fired
- Law firm that agreed to defend marriage pressured by gay groups
- California Democrats mandate gay history in public schools
- Brown University students attack pro-marriage sign at demonstration
- Queen’s University feminist professor says that polygamy should be permitted
- Christianity under fire from secular governments in San Francisco and Quebec
- Christians forced to perform same-sex marriages
- UK Equalities Minister introduces law allowing gays to marry in churches
- Christian business owners found guilty for disagreeing with homosexuality
- Belgian archbishop targeted by gay activists over AIDS remarks
- Christian couple barred from having foster children
- Christian student loses case with Eastern Michigan University
- Ireland considers bill to criminalize dissent from same-sex civil unions
- Catholic Charities closes adoption agency due to same-sex marriage law
- The persecution of a Catholic Bishop (at Blazing Cat Fur)
- The persecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin (at Ezra Levant)
- The persecution of Catholic Insight magazine (at Ezra Levant)
- The persecution of Christian businessman Scott Brockie (at The Interim)
Consider the health problems it causes, such as 40+ times higher rates of HIV and syphilis for gay men. Again, if this was any other group it would be non-stop news. But it doesn’t fit with the mainstream media messaging.
Students who report being gay or bisexual are more likely than heterosexual students to engage in unhealthy risk behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use, sexual risk behaviors, suicidal behaviors, and violence, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Note that the previous facts were about students, yet the schools go overboard encouraging this behavior in kids.
The study reported: “the prevalence among gay or lesbian students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 63.8% of all the risk behaviors measured, and the prevalence among bisexual students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 76.0% of all the risk behaviors measured.”
But they are “born that way,” right?
The footnotes she mentions are in the original article. That article also debunks the “gay gene” myth using identical twin studies, which show that only 10-11% of identical twins have the same sexual orientation.
What?! You mean Lady Gaga was wrong?!
16 thoughts on “A secular case against “same-sex marriage””
“2. Only one man / one woman unions can provide a mother and a father to a child, the ideal for any child. This should be self-evident to any observer.”
And yet, studies show that the most health and emotionally balanced of all children turn out to be the children of lesbian couples.
Sorry, but your ‘self-evident’ info falls apart under scrutiny.
Sorry, I should have said, “This should be self-evident to any observer who isn’t a blithering idiot, a reader of hopelessly biased surveys or a complete sociopath.” Because we’ve had thousands of years of data on kids raised by lesbians and we know the survey questions highlighted all that is truly important and tracked the kids throughout their entire lives, right? I’m sure you could find surveys saying how divorce was good for kids, too.
“1. By nature and design, one man / one woman unions produce the next generation.” – with today’s science, I’m not sure that is completely true. I certainly wouldn’t hang my hat on this as a good argument.
“8. Common sound bites about hospital visitation,…” this one always irritates me. You can sign a document giving anyone (of legal age) the right to make life decisions for you or for hospital visitation. Being married today doesn’t automatically give you the rights it did 10 years ago. I’ve yet to find anyone in the BLT community that acknowledges this, but prefers the sound bite.
When my company elected to give health benefits to same-sex couples and made comparisons to racism, I told my manager (who was a black female) that if I were a minority, I’d be offended. She wasn’t quite sure how to answer. Personally, I think she agreed with me.
I didn’t realize the stats on stable marriages or domestic violence were as convincing as they are. One additional stat I’d like to see is how many people sign up for benefits as same-sex couples. I know in my company is was DRAMATICALLY less than expected.
Hi Randy — as always, thanks for visiting and commenting.
Huh? You don’t think that by nature and by design that is the case? Wouldn’t anything you are speculating about be an example of an unnatural process?
Good for you!
Neil, hopefully you know how I feel on this – I’ll give you a hint: it’s very close to the same way you feel. All I’m saying is that today we can have so many types of “mothers” and “fathers”. Biological, surrogate and many more that I wouldn’t want to talk about. I may be wrong, but I think I even read a case where a man had an embryo implanted and it showed signs of growth (or maybe that was just speculation it was possible).
Regardless, science has gotten to the point where it no longer requires one man and one woman to make a child. If cloning progresses, one person alone could create a child. I agree, that’s not natural or by design. If that’s your point, we’re in complete agreement. If not, I missed it. (which happens from time to time).
Thanks for the clarification. We agree.
Sent from my iPhone
Thank you! 🙂 🙂
It’s happened before with things like the Stupak Amendment and ObamaCare, and it will happen again.
I LOVE your points about how gays and lesbians can already marry, and how they can love whomever they want. In the Loving v. Virginia inter-racial marriage case, the state of Virginia had made it a crime to get married elsewhere and then move there and live as a married, interracial couple. Interracial sex was also a crime. Now that we have Lawrence v. Texas, the gay equivalent has taken place – there should be no need for anything else. Government can’t bust down your door for being a chick who sleeps with chicks, loves chicks, set up a house with a chick, and had a church marry them. Answering “What else do you want” is the key thing here – it’s destruction of marriage, obviously, not any legal rights.
Wow, Neil! Thanks for the encouragement. I was feeling about what happened to Frank Turek, and then when I saw Roxeanne’s post, I decided to write something about it. I’m glad you liked it.
I’m hearing the term “marriage-equity” more and more these days. I guess they think that is an apt expression, but the fact is that the law in now applied with complete equity as it stands. Anyone who wants to marry and fits the parameters set by law can get married and always could. Homosexual men can marry any woman they want to marry and no heterosexual men are able to marry any man. This is put forth as a snide comment, but it exactly what equal justice is supposed to mean. The law applied equally to everyone and it always has been.
But what they seek is to redefine the word marriage so as to include what the word does not now include. Under the current true definition of the word “marriage”, the law was administered with absolute fairness. They do not seek equity, they seek preferential treatment in that they know they do not fit the definition, but wish to be treated as if they do.
Yes, the equity argument trades on so many people being influenced by bumper sticker slogans and not thinking just a little carefully.
Sent from my iPhone
There’s all these these great stats being thrown around but what does any of that have to do with the ability of some person choosing to have a legally-sanctioned life-partnership with one another person? And why would anyone care if it’s not a matter of religion? Nobody is affected, accepted indirectly by tax ramifications, and I can assure everyone that some potential tax break being given to legally married people that happen to be the same sex, is the least of our revenue-stream problems. Marriage historically stems from religion and societies ultimately had to deal with the legal ramifications of two people having to be recognized as one. What difference does it make if the couple is the same or a different sex? Government is concerned with the continuation of our species but it’s more concerned with the responsible living of it’s citizenry, which definitely is not a consistent, nor exclusive, feature of heterosexual marriage. The non-religious argument against same-sex marriage is fallible. It still comes down to people being afraid of people that are different from them, and how they’re supposed to be against it because the bible told them so. Unfortunately, folks, it looks like one state after another is going to begin allowing same-sex marriage so keep those facts comin’!!!
You misstated the situation, but that’s not a surprise. States alread “allowed” oxymoronic “same-sex marriage.” It isn’t illegal anywhere. Go “marry” any guy you like in some apostate church. What is being debated, of course, is whether states should confer benefits on these relationships. That’s where the facts come in, but sadly, too many weak-minded people have already been won over by the meaningless “but they love each other!” sound bites.
You’re probably right, though: More states may begin to recognize these relationships, because they are too many people like you who ignore the facts and logic. I realize the pro-LGBTQX advocates count that as a victory in the same way that pro-abortionists celebrated their victory after their campaign of lies.
I think people could generally care less about wether they love each other or not. We generally aren’t concerned about wether a man or a woman love each other when they seek to be married, simply that they meet the legal requirements to do so. The facts are that two citizens are seeking to have the legal benefits of legal marriage which may include insurance and tax benefits, but has no more affect on any other citizen than a heterosexual marriage would.
Oh, and by the way, I apologize about making the off-color remark about “doing it because the bible told them so”, but come on man…..no one is a pro abortionist. That’s just not nice.
But some people are truly pro-abortion. They push for taxpayer-funded abortions, which they know will increase abortions.
Two key items to remember are these: LGBTQX want acceptance and there’s no better way than to start with young minds even if it hurts those little ones. This is something that needs to be studied carefully. We need great communicators to help us spread the message.