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.

[LomanBill]

>>Then, eventually it gets around to...

http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm

[Tarantulas]

You may not be making a lot of friends with this line of reasoning, but I believe you are doing us a service, so thank you.

Somewhere there is a very extensive website with lots of information about the gay agenda and arguments against things like gay marriage and laws prohibiting discrimination against gays. For example, there was one section that explained why the gay agenda is not a civil rights issue. The author said that civil rights refers to the rights of a group of people who possess outwardly visible differences from the rest of society. He said that being gay is nothing more than claiming a belief system, so since no one can determine what you think or believe, you can’t say that being gay makes you a minority under civil rights laws. The way he stated it was more poetic and well thought out, unlike my poor effort to explain it. Anyway, that website should also provide plenty of non-religious arguments if that’s what you want.

[MrB]

Brannon Howse (http://www.worldviewweekend.com) did a series of podcasts on the parallels between Hitler era Christian churches in Germany, their compromises, their apostasy,
and what we’re seeing today in the “modern” church.

One of the items was acceptance of homosexuality as “normal”. One of the first things Hitler did was remove the word “unnatural” from the laws regarding homosexuality. Though he never openly acknowledged it himself, it is widely known that homo behavior permeated most of his enforcers’ groups.

[redfog]

6. “Gay marriage” is icky.

[LomanBill]

How 'bout because the folks pushing Transhumanist-Postgenderist doctrine...

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Transhumanist+PostGenderist  

...are obviously, insanely, INhuman?

in·hu·man/inˈ(h)yo͞omən/

Adjective:

Lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric. Not human in nature or character

 

 

 

[LomanBill]

[One of the first things Hitler did was remove the word “unnatural” from the laws regarding homosexuality.]

Yep.

The same mentality that produced the Nazi Nietzschean“Ubermensch” supermen wanabes — is the very same mentality rooted in the collectivist thuggery that's pushing the Transhumanist Postgenderist agenda today.

They're “improving” the species, don't ya know?

[MestaMachine]

“Though he never openly acknowledged it himself, it is widely known that homo behavior permeated most of his enforcers’ groups.”

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.

[trailhkr1]

Not to me,and I don’t think we are in the minority

For now. I'm in my mid 20's and the vast amount of people I hang out with, work with and just run across in daily life who are my age or younger have no problem with gays getting married. And I don't hang out with any gays or outright libs that I am aware of.

Most people my age I know are somewhat conservative or at the very least moderate because we know we are going to get this financial mess of a country that was not our doing.

[trailhkr1]

“What happens if by some weird twist of fate, you get some Fred Phelps type person in charge?” Or a mullah...

The country is turning more agnostic every day. We are becoming a mirror of Europe. Those two types would never be elected in the US.

[MrB]

One of Nietzsche’s tenets was that holding all men to a common morality was detrimental to the higher men. We see people today that live by this, elitist politicians in particular, that think they should not be held to the same moral accounting as the people they rule over.

[MrB]

And that goes back to rejecting God’s law written on your heart - it makes you capable of any sort of sadistic brutality the fallen imagination can come up with.

[Logic n' Reason]

Kind of opinionated and biased, aren’t we??

[Logic n' Reason]

There are many many "humans" viewed as being "in-human" by others. It usually involves cultural mores or religious belief systems.

What ever happened to "god bless diversity!!"

Remember: "one man's "in-human" is another man's popsicle!"

[Logic n' Reason]

It's ok. My friends know me, and I them.

I just hate religious bigotry in any form.
I believe Mother Theresa worked with humans. She was "religious" by example and brutally hard work.
She did not pontificate, preach, or deride. She did not distinguish between "gays", homosexuals, ugly, ignorant, religious, irregligious, etc.

She did what she felt was her job. Caring for people.

To bad many can't learn from her example and follow it.

[Antoninus]

Bump. Excellent article.

[gura]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html

[Vinnie]

My biggest single objection is...Adoption.

[Antoninus]

For now. I'm in my mid 20's and the vast amount of people I hang out with, work with and just run across in daily life who are my age or younger have no problem with gays getting married.

That was also true when I was in my 20s. Now, not so much. Why? Because a strange thing happens when people in their late teens and early twenties get jobs, get married, have kids, become more mature. Suddenly the perpetual adolescent behavior of most in the sodomite community doesn't seem so funny anymore.

[Antoninus]

She did not pontificate, preach, or deride. She did not distinguish between "gays", homosexuals, ugly, ignorant, religious, irregligious, etc.

If you think Mother Theresa was in favor of homosexual "marriage", you are insane. She tended to the spiritual needs of those who came looking for physical relief and made no exceptions as good Christians are called to do.

If you can find any proof of her affirming homosexual acts or seeking to institutionalize sodomite relationships as the moral equivalent of husband and wife, please post it. Otherwise, stop slandering the memory of this good woman.

[FES0844]

I pray you are right.