In the creation/evolution debate, the religious right loves to argue about missing links; in the debate over gay marriage, they seem to specialize in arguments with missing links. In column after column, we see the same argument repeated - gay marriage will "destroy" marriage - without any of them bothering to fill in the missing link. What is the causal link between allowing gays to marry and "marriage" (they always use the word as though it was an actual physical entity) being "destroyed" or "weakened" or "gravely damaged"? One of the silliest columns I've read is this one by Alan Sears of the ADF. He begins with this delightful little straw man cum red herring:
So, essentially, the argument in opposition to a federal marriage amendment comes down to this: sex trumps God.
Sex trumps religious liberty. Sex trumps the well-being of children. Sex trumps personal conscience.
Sex trumps the Constitution.
Boy, Alan, you really nailed it. That's it, that's the whole argument against gay marriage - sex trumps God. Except that I have yet to see an argument for gay marriage that has anything to do with either sex or God. Arguments against gay marriage, on the other hand, tend to contain a lot of talk about sex and God.
By forcing court-ordered same-sex "marriage" on the rest of us, political activists pushing the homosexual agenda will compel the great majority of American citizens and religious groups to ignore their deepest spiritual convictions, and effectively embrace--at the point of a legal shotgun--a homosexual definition of matrimony.
Except that, at this point, only one state has had a court order the legalization of gay marriage, Massachusetts. And in that state, the public supports the policy and the legislature voted not to attempt to overturn the decision. In a second state, Connecticut, without any prompting from a court, the legislature passed a law allowing civil unions for gays. And in my state, a law was passed against gay marriage that, we were promised, would only prevent actual gay marriages, nothing else; the moment it was passed, they used it to file lawsuits against union contracts that included any benefits at all for domestic partners. At this point, the only ones using the law to oppress anyone else is your side, pal.
And, in doing so, these same advocates will force open the door for polygamy and countless other redefinitions of the term. Marriage, having ceased to become what it is, will effectively become nothing at all.
Mission accomplished.
I love this meme that says gays are out to destroy marriage - by getting married. You know, if you want to destroy marriage, getting married is a piss poor way of doing it. And here again we have this enormous missing logical link. How does allowing gays to marry lead to marriage become "nothing at all"? Will your marriage suddenly cease to exist if gays are allowed to marry? Of course not. This is sort of like arguing that if a gentile throws a party and calls it a bar mitzvah, the very concept of bar mitzvahs will be destroyed - despite the fact that Jews will go right on having bar mitzvahs to their heart's content regardless.
Then, on to the next mission: search out and destroy any church or religious institution that doesn't embrace homosexual behavior.
Oh nonsense. I couldn't care less whether your church, or any religious institution, continues to believe that gays are horrible evil people who eat Christian babies and howl at the moon. I will defend your right to be anti-gay as fiercely as I defend others' right to be gay, and so will the first amendment. We legalized interracial marriage and no one was thrown in jail for being against that change. This is nothing but demagoguery in the form of ridiculous conspiracy mongering.
And the case of Pastor Ake Green--arrested in his native Sweden for daring to preach a sermon in his own church on what the Bible says about homosexual behavior--gives an ominous preview of coming attractions, once religious liberty falls afoul of the homosexual movement's aggressive intolerance--an intolerance demanding religious liberty give way to the homosexual agenda.
Sweden is wrong and Sweden doesn't have the first amendment, as we do here. I'm concerned about attempts to censor anti-gay speech as well, as I have written frequently. I'm against school policies that prevent students from speaking their mind on it on either side. But that is an entirely separate issue; it is not a logical reason not to legalize gay marriage. And then there's this stunning statement:
The problems with same-sex "marriage" are myriad--the emotional implications for children, the permanent physical and psychological dangers for those engaging in homosexual behavior, the structural cracks in society, the precedent for government intrusion in profoundly personal arenas.
I'm sorry, did this bonehead just claim that allowign gays to marry sets a precedent for government intrusion in profoundly personal areas? I believe he did. And I believe that's the dumbest thing I've heard since....well, since the last guy tried to defend the gay marriage amendment.
- Log in to post comments
[quote]Except that I have yet to see an argument for gay marriage that has anything to do with either sex or God.[/quote] Well, religion, anyway. The chappie who wrote the original Amendment language has claimed in an interview (if I'm understanding it correctly) that permitting gay marriage [i]is religious discrimination.[/i] Basically because it prevents a religious person from expressing their opinion that homosexuality is wrong.
Nutters, I know. But they're all nutters.
This reminds me of the reasons the Underpants Gnomes on South Park give for why they collect underpants.
I guess gay marriage opponents' argument can be summed up thusly:
Step 1. We allow gay marriage.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Marriage is destroyed!!!
So, how many of the "rest of us" have been forced into court-ordered same-sex "marriages" since the MA decision?
Wow. That is profoundly stupid. Of course it ignores the fact that a not insignificant number of religious organizations sanction same-sex marriages. But even if one were to grant the premis that religion is unified against same-sex marriage, that is still a stupid argument, since MA allowing same-sex marriages in no way, shape or form "prevents a religious person from expressing their opinion that homosexuality is wrong."
Ed:
Did you comment on the article?
As a Jew, I find the "religious discrimination" argument baffling: after all, Christians (or, rather, a certain variety thereof) have had no problem whatsoever telling me that I'm wrong, refusing to hire me at denominational colleges, and so forth. And discrimination against folks like yours truly is far less socially acceptable than discrimination against gays--at least, the last time I checked. So why would Christians suddenly find themselves unable to say that "homosexuality is wrong," when they're still perfectly capable of saying that "Judaism is wrong"? What have I missed in this argument?
By forcing court-ordered same-sex "marriage" on the rest of us, political activists pushing the homosexual agenda will compel the great majority of American citizens and religious groups to ignore their deepest spiritual convictions, and effectively embrace--at the point of a legal shotgun--a homosexual definition of matrimony.
Exactly as Roman Catholics have been compelled "to ignore their deepest spiritual convictions, and effectively embrace--at the point of a legal shotgun--" a Protestant definition of matrimony that includes the "right" to divorce.
And that destroyed society, right?
My favorite response to the "forcing gay marriage on all of us" is to talk about my Wiccan co-worker who married her husband in a grove of trees, under a full moon, buck nekkid, in a ceremony officiated by a witch, minus any supplication to or intercession by the Christian god. Pagan marriage and godless civil marriage and even *gasp* Muslim marriage have already been "forced" on fundamentalist Christians, but they have caused neither the institution of marriage to evaporate nor good Christians to forsake their church weddings for chalice-and-blade or justice-of-the-peace confabs.
Let's see... If I get the right to do something that you can already do, then that somehow spoils it for you?
I guess we need an amendment saying gays can't own guns, cuz, you know, if gays can own guns, that violates the Second Amendment rights of straight people.
Does the word "duh" have too many syllables for these people?
WoW! I've never seen a straw man cum red herring!
Really? I recall seeing an argument that banning gay marriage was religious discrimination because the church the people belonged to did allow gay marriage, and therefore by banning it the government was intruding on the free practice of religion. There was a similar argument made in Perez v. Sharp.
Sorry I don't have a source for that.