Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

My responses to Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage. These arguments are a synopsis of the book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire and was found at this LINK.

Away we go...

Argument #1.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.
It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

--The “Weekly Standard” is not exactly the greatest example of an unbiased news source. Second, according to CNN , “Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.” Straight Americans are choosing to have children out of wedlock. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. In this particular situation, gay marriage is being used as a scapegoat.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

--Again, we are talking about straight couples making these choices. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. In fact, one ironic solution could be that maybe a gay married couple could adopt some of these poor disadvantaged children and give them some stability.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV).

--See previous blog post for response to this.

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

--This is a false conclusion and is also the classic slippery slope argument. A slippery slope fallacy is one that claims that something is bad or wrong because it could snowball into something that is bad or wrong. It ignores middle ground or other possible outcomes and relies on a magic crystal ball to foretell the future. Not to mention, the person making this particular argument has yet to prove causation with the idea that gay marriage somehow takes away from “traditional” marriage.

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.
Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

--There are at least 3 fallacies at work here. First, there is appeal to tradition. Appeal to tradition is when you assume something is right or true because it has always been done that way. It’s like saying “We have been burning fossil fuels for years so it is obviously the best way to power a vehicle.” An example of this fallacy is evident when he says that “Despite 5,000 years of history” and “Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.” That last statement “overwhelming support of the people” is a fallacy of appealing to the majority. Appealing to the majority is when you claim a proposition is right or true because so many people believe it. In reality, a thing can be true even if no one believes it. Next is the fallacy of slippery slope where gay marriage opens the flood gates of polygamy (I’m for polygamy, BTW. Perhaps I will explain that in another post.).

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

--The first paragraph is future forecasting and appeal to fear. The last paragraph is one giant slippery slope. It’s beyond ridiculous. He makes the leap from two committed people getting married to some sort of orgy and some dude getting together with a donkey? What? I also chuckled when he said “rights” at the end of paragraph 1. The quotations around it made it seem to me like that word should be read as if it was a word uttered by a poor soul who just stepped in dog crap. Is it just me? Then he says, “those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots”. He’s probably right about that.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

--I’ll have to take his word for this. I’m all for divorces being obtained instantly. Why not? In my opinion, people should be free to make these choices for themselves. I’m not saying it isn’t a sad thing when two people get divorced. I am saying that when two people want to get divorced they should be able to get divorced without expensive court fees and lawyers. I’m still not very clear on what this has to do with gay marriage other than accusing the “homosexual movement” of somehow destroying the “marital relationship”. I don’t think much of a point is being made in argument 3 so I’ll move on.

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

--LOL. What? Where to start? Appeal to fear, slippery slope and crystal ball forecasting. A recent study found that about 7% of men reported having sexual contact with another man in the last year in the United States. That ain’t that much. Why are we assuming that this will open the flood gates to “equal space?” Also, what exactly is the fear here? Does homosexuality cease to exist if people prevent their kids from hearing about it? What happens when these kids grow up and step out into the real world? Do the words found in a book on a school library shelf trump the teachings of a parent? Is this really a concern?

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

--OK…and? If you want to adopt a child you need to show that you are more capable of raising that child than the competition. If 2 gay dudes win that contest then more power to them. Guess what? In the courts view, you would suck as a parent. Sorry. Remember this: Just because you got 2 people with opposite “plumbing” doesn’t mean you are automatically more suited to raise a child. There are plenty of bum straight parents out there.

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo "sensitivity training" to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

--OK. So people will have to stop thinking for themselves and start promoting the agenda of “big brother”. Argument 6 is moronic.

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?

--Go with me back in time. Can’t you just hear this argument being made in the 1860’s? “We can’t free these slaves! What about our labor costs? How will we turn a profit on this cotton? This will ruin us financially!”

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

--More slippery slope. At this point I don’t even care anymore.

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth" (NIV).

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

--Appeal to tradition and slippery slope.

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.
This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.
This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

--Appeal to fear, slippery slope, appeal to tradition. I’m spent.