Civil Rights Arguments

All you need is love

... Gay advocates and sympathizers also believe that marriage should be the legal right of any two people who love each other. After all, marriage is about love and commitment, right? True, but “commitment” for gays holds a very different meaning. For instance, a 2003 study of gay men in the Netherlands indicated that the average gay man in a committed relationship has eight extra-marital partners per year.

That would seem to be the norm according to gay activist M. Sinorile, who writes, “Monogamy simply doesn’t necessarily mean sexual exclusivity . . . [but] a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex, or share partners.”

But to the larger issue: if marriage is primarily about love and commitment, why should it be limited to two people? Why not three, five, or twenty? Why not allow a brother to marry his sister, a father marry his daughter? For that matter, why should marriage be limited to the human species? Why not have cross-species marriages for a woman and her dog, a man and his goat, or three women and a horse?

If you think that’s a stretch, consider that earlier this year a British woman married a dolphin! No, it wasn’t an impromptu college prank after a night of binge-drinking, it was a planned ceremony conducted fifteen years after a love-at-first-sight encounter between 41-year old millionairess, Sharon Tendler, and Cindy the dolphin. (The slope is indeed slippery, and we are well on our way down.)

(Excerpted from an article by Regis Nicoll, All Things Examined, entitled "The Dangers of Same Sex Marriage" )

The Right to Disagree ...

Re-writing the definition of marriage does not just change one law, it changes everything. The legal term marriage permeates every sphere of law: taxes, education, and employment. These laws in turn regulate religious institutions and para-church organizations like schools, hospitals, child-care facilities, disability services, aged care facilities, nursing homes and so on.

There are currently court cases over Christian child-care organizations that have refused to provide children brought for care to same sex couples, as they do not constitute a marriage or a family.

In Massachusetts, U.S.A. where same-sex marriage  is the law, Roman Catholic Child care agencies announced that they would no longer serve as an adoption agencies. Why not? Because by Massachusetts law, organizations that place children for adoption must have a state license. And organizations with state licenses may not discriminate against same-sex couples.

So Catholic Charities had to choose: Either obey the law and violate the teachings of the Catholic Church, or get out of the adoption business altogether. It wisely chose the latter

(Excerpted from an article by Gordon Moyes entitled "But is it the Same?" )

The Right to Free Speech ...

Charles Colson indicates that in California, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law that makes it illegal for any non-profit organization receiving state funds to portray homosexual or bisexual practices in a negative light so much for preaching from the pulpit about homosexuality being a sin.

Religious colleges have also been forced to extend married housing to same-sex couples. Employees who voice dissent over practices that promote the homosexual lifestyle may risk censure or loss of employment, as did a 63-year-old Muslim employee of William Paterson University in New Jersey. He called homosexuality a perversion. 

And even in cases where the government can t compel faith-based groups to affirm homosexuality, it can punish defiant organizations by banning them from using public facilities.

There is no injustice against homosexuals, because the legal rights for lesbian and homosexual males who live together are guaranteed if and when the relationship breaks up, in the event of death or in the rights of wills.

Like it or not, the questions surrounding same-sex marriage  and special rights for homosexuals are going to force us to deal with religious freedom issues even what we can preach about from the pulpit.

(Excerpted from an article by Gordon Moyes entitled "But is it the Same?" )

What God Hath Joined Together ...

... Same-sex marriage is a symptomatic threat to families, compared to the more fundamental effect of "no fault" divorce. "Commentators miss the point when they oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would undermine traditional understandings of marriage," writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University. "It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it."

Michael McManus of Marriage Savers writes that "divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays."

(Excerpted from an article by Stephen Baskervillel, President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children )

Where is the Harm?

... gay advocates are right to point out the failures of the heterosexual marriage. Beginning in 1969, no-fault divorce made it easier to get out of a twenty-five-year marriage than to get out of one’s cell phone contract. Within fifteen years, the divorce rate soared to 250 percent of its 1960 value with the majority of divorces involving minor children headed by a single-parent woman.

Prior to that time, the strong marriage ethos of our society meant that most pregnant women were either married or got married. But by 1992 the number of children born outside of marriage jumped from 11 percent to 30 percent. Tragically, those children are more often victims of abuse, domestic violence, anti-social behavior, depression, substance abuse, and poverty than children brought up by both biological parents.

To answer Mr. Giberson on how gay “marriage” will affect this trend, we need look no further than Scandinavia. According to Stanley Kurtz in the Weekly Standard, Scandinavia has had gay “marriage” for over a decade. During that time it experienced a 25 percent increase in co-habitation and unmarried parenthood, resulting in a 60 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate in some Scandinavian countries.

In addition, studies compiled by Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey show that children raised by gay couples risk a fifty times higher incidence of incest, a two times incidence of domestic violence, and perform worst in nine out of twelve social and academic areas, as compared to children in other family types.

Thus, the results for the gay “marriage” experiment are in: By further elevating the desires of adults over the needs of children, gay “marriage” widens the gap between marriage and the stable nurture of the next generation.

Has the blight of heterosexual divorce undermined the welfare of families and children? Sadly, yes. But that is no justification to redefine marriage, or sanction other family configurations that deepen the problems of fatherless homes, single-parent moms, and at-risk children.

“[T]he lives of millions of adults and children will judge us harshly for not learning the marriage redefinition lesson the first time. People get hurt deeply when you tinker with the essential nature of marriage . . . ” (Glenn T. Stanton)

(Excerpted from an article by Regis Nicoll, All Things Examined, entitled "The Dangers of Same Sex Marriage" )

Were we born this way?

Know that we were NOT born this way. This myth was fashioned by the gay establishment as a basis for changing laws in favor of gay rights. Again it works for their purposes, but it is biblically UNTRUE. There is no way that anyone, without an agenda, can come away from the bible with an endorsement by God of the gay lifestyle. Gay theology starts with an agenda [‘Let’s make the bible say gay is O.K.’] in order to arrive at its conclusions, but it is a lie.

(Excerpted from an article by Charlene Cothran , Redeemed! 10 Ways to Get Out of the Gay Life, If You Want Out )

Can we Divorce the Old Testament from the New Testament?

Do not allow gay theology to divorce the Old testament from the New or the written words of the Apostles from the spoken words of Jesus Christ. This is a good trick, but its no longer working because God is preparing to bring millions of gays and lesbians back to His feet. He has already chosen many of us for this specific purpose and He is waiting for YOU to accept His call.

(Excerpted from an article by Charlene Cothran , Redeemed! 10 Ways to Get Out of the Gay Life, If You Want Out )

Traditional Marriage discriminates against Gays & Lesbians

Context from US Constitutional perspective | Their logic goes something like this: Marriage is an inalienable right protected under the equal treatment provisions of the Constitution. Traditional marriage laws discriminate against gays and lesbians. Hence, laws banning same-sex marriage are violations of basic civil rights.

Their logic gets two things wrong.

First, traditional marriage laws are no more discriminatory than drunk-driving laws that apply equally to the life-long alcoholic and the teetotaler. In the same way, everyone—whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, or heterosexual—has a right to marry, just not with someone of the same sex.

Next, the notion that same-sex marriage is an inalienable right, conflates the difference between natural rights and civil rights.

Civil rights are legal privileges granted by the State to promote the common good of the governed. They include the right to drive a car, vote, and drink alcoholic beverages.

Natural rights, on the other hand, are universal liberties—like the freedom of thought, expression, and religion—deserving legal protection from the State. Thomas Jefferson had in mind natural rights when he penned “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...”

According to the Framers, natural rights are not defined by, or derived from, the civil magistrate or popular opinion; they are rooted in the eternal law of God, and universally knowable in nature’s laws. They also understood that for a just society, our freedoms—in the words of John Locke—must be exercised “within the bounds of the law of nature.”

(Excerpted from an article by Regis Nicoll, All Things Examined, entitled "Bench Legislation" )