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:
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?!