The Argument Against Gay Marriage

While watching Bill O'Reilly (this may disturb some of you), he began to discuss the gay marriage overruling with an opponent who had trouble answering Bill's question. Bill wanted to know what argument gay marriage opponents are going to use to those who don't listen to religious arguments, but listen to reason - why shouldn't California want gay marriage?

The man did a horrible job of answering the question - he couldn't do it. In fact, I've heard this question posed by liberals and Christian opponents of same-sex marriage have a difficult time doing it. Because the answer, and there is and answer, kind of sucks. The answer that the Court will actually look at will have to compare gays to criminals. The argument that gay couples are making is that the law that Californians passed - defining marriage as between a man and a woman - is discriminatory. However, all laws are discriminatory on their face.

Warren Jeffs can argue that laws banning multiple wives are discriminatory against his religious views - he's a polygamist, it's part of his FLDS religion, and he's considered criminal. He could also argue that laws against sex with 12 year old girls is discriminatory to his sexual preferences of liking sex with adolescent children.

In fact, there are no cases in support of gay marriage advocates, they all are against gay marriage. Whether you look at common law that predates thousands of years, statuatory law (DOMA), or just cases from the Supreme Court, nothing supports their claim. The act of the 9th Circuit Court to usurp its citizenry from creating social standards within the law was just another example of flagrant activist judges abusing power.

The attack on the family is severe and this battle only shows how bad this bloody war is getting. Every argument tossed at conservatives that are trying to preserve one of the most fundamental and sacred covenants only prove that the logic behind same-sex marriages is preposterous, and that we as a society need to bolster the family. I hear the claim, "if 50% of marriages end in divorce, why not just let the gays get married." Some even joke about it - let the gays endure the torture of marriage and let heteros stop getting married. Wow.

My first reaction is that maybe rather than opening the door to everyone and their dog getting married (and I'm being serious about this - slippery slope), we should look at why we have a steep divorce rate. The countries that have had gay marriages for over a decade - Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, and recently Canada to name a few (see a trend...socialists) have all suffered in their family unit. Most have had a sharp decline in traditional marriage, cohabitation has increased and 60% of first children are born to unwed parents. Same-sex marriage proponants actually argued divorce was down in these coutries - that's because marriage declined! People can't get divorced if they're not married. If people are no longer getting married because traditional marriage means nothing, men do not want to get married. Some feminists do not want to get married. This leads to temporary cohabitation, sometimes children, and then the couple goes their seperate ways once their relationship is over with no solid committment or selflessness despite a child to raise. No laws bind them or protect them. Children do suffer. This is certain and proven. They should just give that kid up to a loving gay couple.

With divorce in America, women initiate 2/3 of the divorce. In the Scandinavian countries women request most of the divorces. This is probably due to the fact in a socialist society women are not dependent on a man and can freely leave and depend on the government for financial support. I've seen this amongst my own peer group - women who can afford it are more likely to leave an unstable marriage. In homosexual couples, both are typically working and can afford to walk away from a relationship financially stable.

The attack on the family continues as people claim that marriage is "just a piece of paper". But marriage has been linked to great health benefits, economic benefits, and overall mental well being. Children raised by two loving biological parents benefit greatly from this union. To not fight for this definitive marriage and push for standards to preserve it is outrageous.

Ninety percent of our population claims to be religious and celebrate a tradition of heterosexual marriage. We are currently following our socialist friends to the East and ending our heritage of health and prosperity to placate a small minority that represents approximately 4.2% of the populate (University of Chicago study - the 10% is debunked and based on a ludicrious question of "have you ever had a homosexual experience"). Our Judeo-Christian heritage perpetuates homosexuality as a sin, yet we are bending over backwards for this "discriminated" segment? You want another argument, Bill? Allah! Last time I checked, Muslim terrorists sure hated gay marriage. I'm not sure which they hate more - Bush or gay marriage. Maybe Ellen should get married at the Ranch like she asked Laura Bush on her show. Then we'll know where they're going to attack next.

I don't hate homosexuals. In fact, most of the time I like my gays better than most males. But this debate isn't one centered in hatred. It's quite the opposite. It's embedded in love. A deep respect and love for one of our most sacred traditions for a family unit that alliviates many of societies ills. A little naive? Perhaps. But this love is one for my country too, and I know freedoms are preserved when children are given a fair chance in a loving traditional home. God Bless America.

Other Sources:
Weekly Standard Article: End of Marriage in Scandinavia
US Divorce Statistics