Why do I oppose gay “marriage”? Not because I’m homophobic. Not because I hate homosexuals. Not because I’m a closeted homosexual. Not because I’m stupid. Not because I’m mean. Not because my right-wing overlords commanded me to. All of those accusations are baseless. The reasons I oppose it are straightforward and obvious.
I oppose gay “marriage” because it would harm children, change the definition of marriage, undermine the nuclear family, and wash away the foundation of our society.
I’d be much less annoyed if the gay rights movement would stop getting judges to do their dirty work by forcing their agenda on people who overwhelmingly oppose gay “marriage.” This is precisely why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Are you finally paying attention? Missouri is.
Here’s the rollcall vote on the vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. No, I didn’t accidentally repeat “vote on.” By a vote of 50 to 48, the FMA was kept off the floor and failed to come to a vote. Which two Profiles In Courage weaseled out of taking a position? You get one guess.
I’m glad to see that my two guys, DeWine and Voinovich, voted “yes.” I’m not too surprised, since reaching their offices by phone took me two days; the nice staffers who answered said they’d been swamped with calls. We’ll see if they take the right stand when it’s time to vote on the FMA itself.
On a side note, this filibuster nonsense needs to stop. Just don’t blame Democrats alone for today’s 60-vote silliness.
If you’re not a Christian, you might find this post mildly interesting, but it probably won’t tickle your gray cells much. Most of you Christians out there trying to argue against gay “marriage” need to understand my point and adjust your approach.
Dr. Dobson over at Focus On The Family has posted excerpts from his book “Marriage Under Fire“, offering his eleven arguments in opposition to gay “marriage”:
- The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
- Children will suffer most.
- Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.
- Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
- Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
- The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
- Social Security will be severely stressed.
- Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
- Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.
- The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
- The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37).
I think Greg Koukl over at Stand To Reason does a much better job of persuading undecided people who don’t tackle this issue from an evangelical Christian worldview. In Dobson’s defense, his audience is almost exclusively evangelical Christians like me, and his excerpted essay aims to get us off our lazy butts and do something about the problem.
Think of it this way. There are plenty of arguments you could use to oppose gay “marriage”, signified by the inside of the light brown circle. Some of them have foundations in a Christian worldview (the darker circle). The wise advocate for traditional marriage will select the right intellectual ammunition for each target. You might be convinced that our Christian arguments give you more than enough to get the job done, but non-Christians respond to that approach like a tank responds to a pistol bullet.
Yes, I know we’re right. But tactically speaking, your sincere beliefs don’t mean anything to someone who doesn’t recognize the authority of the Bible. How receptive are you when you hear a muslim arguing that Islam must be the one true faith, because the miraculous beauty and structure of the Quran shows that it couldn’t possibly be otherwise? Their source of authority is illegitimate in your worldview. And just like them, you’re trying to knock out a tank with a handgun.
If you don’t want to be a gooey blob in somebody’s tank treads, pick up an intellectual anti-tank missile. Use arguments that stand some chance of getting past the non-Christian’s armor. I’ve highlighted five of Dobson’s eleven points that have some promise. Not all of them are potential winning shots, but at least they can do some good.
Try using what you find here:
Commentary on news
I’ll keep adding bullets as I find more good material.
In her essay More Than a “Lifestyle Choice”, Jennifer Marshall notes that the Senate is finally getting around to addressing gay “marriage” by voting on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Now if only my two Senators, Mike Dewine and George Voinovich, would get off their noncommittal butts and vote “yes” on S.J.RES.30. I’ll be in touch, fellas.
Hat tip: Frank Beckwith
Same-sex “marriage” is now legal in Massachusetts. Since the old definition of marriage, “one man and one woman”, has been thrown out in favor of “two men … or two women … or one man and one woman”, I have a question. If marriage is that easy to redefine, then how can anybody oppose stretching it further to include the following examples?
1) three bisexuals from two genders
2) one person who wants to marry himself
3) two married couples who want a temporary “wife-swap lease”
4) two brothers, two sisters, or a brother and a sister
5) an adult mother and son
6) a man who wants to add a second wife and a first husband
7) a man and his dog
8) a man and a girl (aged 17 years and 364 days)
9) a man and a boy (aged 17 years and 364 days)
10) a man and a boy (aged 13)
11) a man and a girl (aged 6)
Somebody please explain to me how formalized government-sanctioned gay “marriage” will stop things like this.
Gay Marriage Ban Passes 1st Step in Mass. (AP)
The Massachusetts Legislature today actually passed an amendment banning gay marriage. I’m pleasantly surprised. Governor Romney’s sure to sign it, but his request to the Mass Supreme Court to hold off on its order to allow gay marriage will fall on deaf ears. If those judges aren’t afraid of ordering the Legislature around, what do you suppose the odds are that they respect a governor?
Now we’ll see if they can repeat their feat next year and make the amendment official.
Hugh Hewitt’s article in The Weekly Standard, “Without the Consent of the Governed“, does a nice job of summarizing why so many of us are so outraged at the gay marriage advocates: they’re ramrodding their desires through the courts instead of doing things democratically.
Two other, similar columns are also worth a read:
“Gay Marriage — An Issue for the People, not the Courts“, by Michael B. McClellan
“Strange Bedfellows“, by Stanley Kurtz