Tagged: gay marriage

Yes, yes, it’s those damned social cons who ruined everything

Ace has decided to dump on us social conservatives again:

I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

Homosexual attraction may or may not be genetic (and thus unavoidable). Actual homosexual conduct is avoidable. Its harmful public health consequences are well-documented. Open homosexual conduct’s corrosion of a society founded on the nuclear heterosexual family is also well-documented.

Further, government has a rational basis for encouraging childbirth, as maintaining the population of contributing members of society allows that society to continue (duh). Since it’s well-documented that children raised by married monogamous heterosexuals turn out better/healthier/more productive/more peaceable than children raised in other environments, government has a rational basis for encouraging monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and whateversexuals will put their naughty bits where they want to. Government can’t stamp that out, nor should it try (there are too many more important tasks for it to accomplish, tasks which it currently neglects). But at a minimum, government should refrain from subsidizing, celebrating, or normalizing such socially corrosive conduct.

If you choose to warp this argument into “teh creepy Jesus peoplez want to round up teh gayz!!!1!” … well, I can’t stop you. I can sure as hell ridicule your intellectual foolishness, though.

The American electorate appears determined to join the Free Shit Army™, while preening in the mirror over its collective refusal to recognize corrosive conduct for what it is. So be it. Spendthrifts will eventually run out of money, and libertines will eventually reap the whirlwind of chaos. We social conservatives will be here to rebuild once reality’s finished pimp-slapping some basic sense back into y’all.

Let it burn.

Coulter vs. Rove

Ann Coulter thinks Karl Rove’s no campaign genius:

If Rove is “the architect” — as Bush called him in his acceptance speech — then he is the architect of high TV ratings, not a Republican victory. By keeping the race so tight, Rove ensured that a race that should have been a runaway Bush victory would not be over until the wee hours of the morning.
As we now know, the most important issue to voters was not terrorism, but moral values. Marriage amendments won by lopsided majorities in all 11 states where they were on the ballot. Even in Oregon, the state targeted by gay marriage advocates as their best shot of defeating a marriage amendment, the amendment passed by 57 percent — a figure noticeable for being larger than the percentage of votes cast for Bush in Oregon. In the great state of Mississippi, the marriage amendment passed with 88 percent of the vote.
Seventy percent to 80 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage and partial-birth abortion. Far from appealing exclusively to a narrow Republican base, opposition to gay marriage is strongest among the Democratic base: blacks, Hispanics, blue-collar workers and the elderly. There were marriage amendments on the ballot in Michigan and Ohio. Bush won Ohio narrowly and lost Michigan by only 2 points. How different might that have been if Bush hadn’t run from the issue.
But Rove concluded Bush should stay mum on gay marriage and partial-birth abortion — contravening the politicians’ rule of thumb: Talk about your positions that are wildly popular with voters. “Boy Genius” Rove decided Bush shouldn’t even run radio ads on gay marriage, and at the last minute, Bush started claiming he was in favor of civil unions, just like John Kerry.

Ouch.

As plain as the nose on your face

Marriage: One Man, One WomanWhy 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.

Tactics for opposing gay “marriage”

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”:

  1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
  2. Children will suffer most.
  3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.
  4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.
  5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.
  6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.
  7. Social Security will be severely stressed.
  8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.
  9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.
  10. The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.
  11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37).

Venn diagramI 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:

Tactics

Arguments

Commentary on news

I’ll keep adding bullets as I find more good material.

Senate to vote on gay “marriage”

Marriage: One Man, One WomanIn 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.

Why stop with gay marriage?

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)