Posted by Michael Dickens on February 1, 2009
I think that we should allow gay marriage. I even think that it should be in the constitution. But why? Some would say, “Why not?” But I don’t see that as a legitimate argument. Here’s why.
A bond between the same gender is no different from a bond between a man and a woman. So why should marriage be different? Denying homosexuals the right to marry is on par with denying African-Americans the right to vote. It is simply denying someone rights because he or she is different.
* * *
Here I have ten arguments, which are “a synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire.” I will now explain why they all fail.
The arguments are a bit rambling, so I have summarized them.
Gay marriage will lead to divorces and remarriages; children will be forced to move frequently, and will have dozens of half-siblings and half-relatives.
Allowing gay marriage will not lead to more divorce. The article talks about how divorce rates are increasing, but fails to explain how gay marriage will lead to more divorce.
Gay marriage may actually lead to less divorce. If, say, a gay man marries a woman, he will be more likely to get a divorce because he will be less likely to be happy with that marriage.
Gay marriage will open the door for polygamy and other immoral institutions.
If gay marriage is legalized, it is because people believe it is right. If people believe that polygamy is morally right, it will be legalized. If not, it won’t. The only way I see that gay marriage opens the door to polygamy is that maybe people will start thinking, Is polygamy really wrong? They may arrive to the decision that it is wrong, and they may not. Either way, thinking about it is better than blindly assuming that it’s wrong.
“…divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit.”
This is completely unrelated to gay marriage. The article fails to explain how gay marriage will lead to this.
“…every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.”
This is not a bad thing. It IS the moral equivalent of traditional marriage. Maybe the article could argue that it’s not, but I have seen no such argument up to this point.
Same-sex couples will have equal priority when it comes to adoption.
Again, the article fails to explain why this is a bad thing. This article is really leaving a lot to the imagination.
“Foster-care parents will be required to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.”
1. If this happens, it isn’t bad.
2. Did we have to do that during segregation of African-Americans?
“How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits?”
You know, it would be so much better for Social Security if no one got any money from it. It would cost so much less.
My point is, homosexuals should be entitled to Social Security, and the fact that it costs more is no reason to deny it from them.
“Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind.”
I see this spreading as a good thing. The comparison of gay marriage to pornography applies to its spreading, but the comparison ends there.
“Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. “
Prove to me that the Bible is the word of God, and also prove to me that I should unquestioningly follow the word of God, and I will accept this as a legitimate argument. Not before.
“The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.
This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God’s people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That’s why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord’s favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.
As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I’m alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.
This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord’s expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.”
I don’t understand how this is even an argument.