The Family Research Council has fired another salvo in the debate on legalizing same-sex marriage with the release of a new documentary that details the harm same-sex marriage can inflict upon a society. (LINK)
Here we go again. The "dangers" of same sex marriage. Anybody want to take an over-under on how much unbiased science is going to be in this DVD? Here's a list of their major complaints:
“Some immediate harms involve a loss of freedom for people who disapprove of homosexuality, and the threat to religious liberty for religious nonprofit groups, such as Christian adoption agencies,” says Sprigg.
If you missed it, Sprigg is talking about the fact that religionist adoption service providers will be forced to abide by anti-discrimination laws if gay marriage is legal. For comparison, let's substitute another word: "Some immediate harm involves a loss of freedom for people who disapprove of blacks, and the threat to religious liberty for religious nonprofit groups, such as Christian adoption agencies."
We've been down this road a number of times before, and the same logic has been used. Women weren't allowed to vote because they were "inherently" less capable than men of understanding the intricacies of politics. Blacks weren't allowed to... well... do much of anything except be poor and uneducated... because they were viewed as "inherently" less intelligent than whites. Now homosexuals aren't allowed to marry because they're "inherently" less capable of raising healthy children, staying faithful, etc.
It's just bigotry. Let's not give it more credit than it's due by calling it something more polite.
Also, businesses and governments would be forced to provide benefits to same-sex married couples.
Yes. They would. That's how not being a bigot works. You treat other people fairly and equally, even if you have personal disagreements with them.
The harms extend to the must vulnerable in our society – our children. Legalization of same-sex marriage would mean schoolchildren would be indoctrinated to support homosexuality – something that’s already begun in states that recognize same-sex marriage.
Yes. They would. But let's put this in less bigoted language: Schoolchildren would be taught the principle of fairness. They would learn that some people love men, and some love women, and it doesn't matter because love is a wonderful thing. They would learn that it's wrong to tell someone who they have to love, and wrong to punish them if they don't see things our way. They would learn the principles of tolerance and open-mindedness.
“Because marriage exists to encourage a traditional family structure, redefining it would mean that fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father, more children would grow up fatherless and birth rates would fall – that’s our prediction if same-sex marriage becomes legal in all 50 states,” says Sprigg.
This claim is absolutely loaded with hidden premises and arguable conclusions. To begin with, the debate centers around the definition of marriage. The religious don't get to declare the definition beforehand. That's called a "circular argument." We might as well say that we can't change the tax rate because the tax rate is defined as what it is today.
What about children? As it stands, there are no prohibitions on raising children in either single parent households or with co-habiting but unmarried parents. We have virtually no data on the prevalence of married homosexuals who desire to adopt, hire a surrogate parent, or seek medical insemination to have children. We don't have any data because we don't allow gays to get married or adopt, and there's a social stigma against children of gay parents!
We also don't need to take it as a given that falling birth rates are necessarily a bad thing. That's an open discussion that could spill over into other areas. (It's blasphemous, I know... but if there were less babies, and less people to do jobs, might that result in a more liberal immigration policy and less spent on the "war on immigration?" There are plenty of people in the world...)
We also know that single parent families are perfectly capable of raising healthy families. The main factors in child welfare (whether in single or double parent households) are money, education, and stability. All three of these factors are attainable in single, straight, or gay households.
And the hits just keep coming:
“Because homosexuals are less likely to enter a committed relationship...
False.
less likely to be sexually faithful...
False.
and less likely to remain committed for a lifetime...
False.
we believe that those behaviors would spread to the heterosexual community if same-sex marriage is legalized...
Christ on toast! Why would you suspect such a thing? It's not as if the existence of homosexuals has led straight men to throw away their tools and decorate their garages with Hummel figurines, is it? Even if it was true that homosexuals are less interested in stable relationships (it's not), why would that matter? Straights have the right to divorce or annul on a dime. And they do it with startling regularity.
How about this: How about if we use your logic. Atheists married to atheists are the most likely to stay married. So why don't we outlaw religious marriage, since it is more likely to end in divorce?
The final reason same-sex marriage would not be good for America is that it could mark the beginning of a slippery slope toward other redefinitions of marriage, such as the legalization of polygamy.
At least they didn't say it would lead to beastiality. That's a step in the right direction, I suppose.
First... What does it matter? Polygamy is legal in many parts of the world, and has been a part of human history -- including in the Christian West -- for longer than it has been illegal. There's been no destruction of society where polygamy is allowed.
But beyond that question, where's your data suggesting that gays want to marry polygamously more than straights? If you don't have it, then what possible reason could you have for believing that a country full of straights and gays who both want monogamous marriage would lead to polygamy?
It's a non-sequitur. It's a scare tactic. And guess what... It's BIGOTRY.
The film’s true stories of people who have had their freedom of speech and religious liberties violated as a result of same-sex marriage brings the issue home because “these are real-life stories, not hypothetical situations,” says Sprigg.
Should we broadcast "real-life stories" of former KKK members who can no longer scream the "N word" at passing African Americans? Those poor, oppressed people! We should fight for their freedom of speech and religious liberties. (Remember, folks... the KKK use the Bible as a basis for justifying slavery. Or... did you forget that?)
Comments