Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage

Townhall.com ^ | February 17, 2012 | John Hawkins

[Kaslin]

1) Gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity (and for that matter, Islam & Judaism). If someone asks you why you oppose gay marriage, the only thing you really have to say to explain it is, "I'm a Christian."

God doesn't condemn anyone for who he is; so if you're attracted to the same sex, that absolutely, unconditionally doesn't make you bad, evil or "un-Christian." On the other hand, let me note that I do consider hating, tormenting, or bullying people because of their sexual orientation to be distinctively "un-Christian" behavior. As Billy Graham has said, “God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings.” However, God has drawn a clear line in the sand when it comes to homosexual acts. If you're gay, you're not allowed to act on it. If that seems harsh or unfair to you, well, sorry, but you'll have to take it up with God. It's His rule.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." -- Leviticus 18:22

The people of Sodom and Gomorrah could tell you how serious God is about that -- if there were any of them left. So as a Christian, you can no more condone gay marriage than you could give the thumbs up to prostitution or wife swapping. That means if you're a Christian standing in favor of gay marriage, then you're a Christian who's standing directly in opposition to the God whom you claim to worship.

2) Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom. The moment gay marriage becomes the law of the land, all sorts of First Amendment freedoms involving the free exercise of people's religion will likely be infringed upon as a consequence. No pastor should be forced to marry a gay couple. No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings. No church or any other location should be forced to be the site of a gay wedding. Children will be taught in schools that gay marriage is normal, legal, and moral -- and it directly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. To create this special privilege for gay Americans would mean impinging on the First Amendment rights of more than 200 million Americans.

3) Civil unions could confer every "right" that marriage does. Gay marriage is not about "rights;" it's about special privileges. After all, every right conferred upon a couple via marriage could be just as easily conferred on a gay couple via a civil union, which is a compromise that could probably be had if gay activists wanted it. In fact, the biggest objection conservatives have had to civil unions is that there's a fear they'd be used as a stepping stone to gay marriage. So, let's be clear: there are actually no "rights" whatsoever at stake in the push for gay marriage.

Instead, what gay activists are looking for is a special privilege of the worst sort because it's as much about dragging everyone else down as it is about raising everyone up. To accommodate gay marriage, the whole meaning of marriage has to be warped and twisted. The religious content has to be taken out and marriage has to become just one more reason to file paperwork with the government.

So, this isn't really so much about marriage per se as it is an attempt to force society and religion to accept gay unions as every bit as normal and healthy as straight relationships, which will never truly happen. You might be able to intimidate some people into silence with political correctness, but the truth is still there and people know it, even if they don't want to be screamed at and accused of being bigots for pointing out the obvious.

4) Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn't be where it ends. Once the definition of marriage is arbitrarily transformed to make gay activists happy, there's no chance it's going to stop there. For example, you could make a much better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. It has a much more robust historical tradition, it's more consistent with religious values, it produces children -- there simply is no compelling, logical reason why gay marriage should become the law of the land without also granting polygamy the same legal status.

Furthermore, once that door is opened, where does it stop? How about brother and sister? Marrying the dead sound any better? How does man and dog strike you? Adults marrying children? How does marrying a tree or a clay urn hit you?

People get outraged by this sort of comparisons, but this isn't just speculation; these are unions that have occurred in other countries. So, if it has happened somewhere else, you can be sure some wacko will want to do it here, some lawyer will decide marrying your sister is a civil right, and some liberal judge will agree with him. Next thing you know, anyone who opposes it is accused of being George Wallace and trying to stop the progress of civil rights. Sound farfetched? Well, isn't that exactly what happened with gay marriage?

5) Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage. One of the weirdest arguments in favor of gay marriage goes like so: Marriage is already on the rocks. Look at all the people cheating, look at all the divorces; so why not gay marriage, too?

This is like arguing that someone has already accidentally eaten some rat poison; so why not give him some cyanide to go along with it? When someone's sick, you don't make him sicker, you heal him. If marriage has been tarnished in our society -- and it has -- we should be looking for ways to strengthen marriage, not weaken it.

Sure, if gay marriage were to become legal tomorrow, you wouldn't have legions of people who are already married running off to get divorced. But, gay marriage would further degrade the religious element of marriage, cut down on the "sacredness" of it, and make it less of a special event. That would cause people to put less value on marriage, make them less likely to get married in the first place, and make them more likely to get divorced. This leads to more children being born out of wedlock and kids from single parents are more likely to commit suicide, take drugs, go to jail, drop out of high school, etc., etc. in every category that matters than kids from two parent families. You can already see this starting to play out in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and you'll see it happen here, too, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land.

[little jeremiah]

Here they be, the REAL reasons homosexual activists have pushed for same sex marriege:

From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”

“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”

He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”

Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:

“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:

“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

[lentulusgracchus]

AND they were the most brutal and sadistic force ever to be found anywhere. So sadistic, that hitler ordered them destroyed in Night of the Long Knives.

Keep in mind, too, that Hitler wasn't responding to them and their degeneracy when he sent in Himmler and his assassins. Rather, it was a Machiavellian play for support of the army officer corps, which Hitler needed desperately, was critical to his establishing a regime, and which was out of reach as long as Roehm and his sadomasochistic stalwart New Men were maxing out the army's gag reflex. So Hitler made the SA general staff go away.

[lentulusgracchus]

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle. [Emphasis added.]

We all saw the Signorile quote years ago, and it was highly instructive, that there was nothing of "fairness" about what the homosexualists were doing. But IMHO this is the be-all, end-all money quote, the rock-bottom line.

"Federal protection" means "crush the straights". It means pulling suffragans out of their pulpits and professors of Judaica out of their yeshivas, and clubbing them in full view of the People, as a warning to others not to annoy homosexuals by noticing and commenting on their perversity, their tiny minority, and their degenerate pursuit of the debauching of youth, which is how they refresh their paltry numbers in the face of society's displeasure.

It hasn't yet sunk in on people that what these people want is necessarily a minoritarian, tyrannical society that despises the rights of the majority to define public morality, and of an individual to say "should".

[LomanBill]

>>federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

 

That won't protect them from the due penalty for their perversion - readily documented via the CDC.

 

The drug-resistant pestilence they're busy manufacturing in the "privacy of their bedroom", will have deadly consequences for the entire culture that has allowed their behavior to be "normalized".

 

For example:

 

Antibiotic-Resistant Gonorrhea (ARG)

The emergence of cephalosporin-resistant gonorrhea in the United States would make gonorrhea much more difficult to treat.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/arg/

 

"MICs greater than or equal to 0.5 μg/mL. For cefixime, only a very small number of isolates reached this threshold. And while the numbers were small, researchers observed an increase in the percentage of cases that crossed this threshold in recent years — from 0.02 percent for 2000–2006 to 0.11 percent for 2009–2010. Of note, all of the isolates with decreased susceptibility to cefixime were collected from gay or bisexual men."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/Antibiotic-Treatment-of-GC-fact-sheet.pdf

Don't need a weatherman to see which way THAT wind blws.

[MestaMachine]

The point I was making though, is that homosexuals (effeminate males for the most part,) are the most vindictive and sadistic people I have ever met, bar none. We have all heard the saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” but I beg to differ. When I was in college, I had professors who were openly gay, and believe me, what I saw and heard, the lengths they will go for revenge or to attract another male, straight or gay, is so far beyond anything anyone could call normal, all you could do was pray they didn’t set their sights on you.

[lentulusgracchus]

Mine too but sadly, I think we’re in the minority. Everything is acceptable today.

Homosexuals would like you to think that.

But they always lose in referendum. Why is that?

Even with their media-queer friends wall-to-wall standing behind them, they still have not closed the deal on selling the idea that what is perverse and abominate, is somehow cool and normal and kinda phun instead.

[ReformationFan]

I believe both the increased acceptance of sexual immorality by the 20-something crowd and their inheriting of the financial mess our nation is in are both aspects of God’s judgment on the West. JMHO.

[ReformationFan]

“Once the definition of marriage is arbitrarily transformed to make gay activists happy, there’s no chance it’s going to stop there. For example, you could make a much better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. It has a much more robust historical tradition, it’s more consistent with religious values, it produces children — there simply is no compelling, logical reason why gay marriage should become the law of the land without also granting polygamy the same legal status.”

Excellent point. I truly fail to see why anyone who opposes marriage being limited to between one man and one woman would have any problem with polygamy legalization.

[LibertyJihad]

I’ll give more than five if you can tell me why marriage exists? What is its purpose? If you tell me that, then I will be able to tailor my answers to your understanding of marriage (since we cannot rely on God or religion to define the meaning).