All quotes are from Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? on NoGayMarriage.com.
Argument #1.
The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock.
Children born out of wedlock. Not relevant to same-sex couples being permitted to marry.
It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.
Still entirely irrelevant to the subject of same-sex marriage.
Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.
This is a slippery slope argument and not valid unless you can prove that the first condition will necessarily lead to the second. When women were granted the right to vote, it wasn’t necessary to offer hamsters the same (though that was an often voiced argument against woman’s suffrage). Similarly, if we grant same-sex couples the right to marry, we wouldn’t have to offer legal backing to polygamous relationships. The best way to avoid falling down a slippery slope is to…. not.
Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, 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.
…. blinks and looks confused ….
I don’t have an answer to entirely unsubstantiated, incorrect statements, except… well… they are ridiculously incorrect. So, to make it clear: the statement quoted above is ridiculously incorrect.
Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, 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.
Absolutely. Not to mention that when we are describing graphic heterosexual sex to those first graders, we will be morally obligated to include similar homosexual “perversions.” *
Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.
Yes, because we certainly have a dearth of children awaiting adoption in the country and therefore all the poor two-parent, heterosexual, unbroken, perfect, wanting to adopt families (are there any of those left?) will be left childless.*
Argument #6
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.
Sensitivity training!?! Heaven forbid! Homosexual children won’t feel rejected by their foster families and society in general? What an awful, awful thought.*
Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?
Economic reasons were also cited as a reason why slavery shouldn’t be abolished. Economic factors cannot be used to justify civil rights violations. We’d manage.
Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.
A fountainhead of filth and immorality? I thought we were god’s chosen country and the Scandinavian countries were the fountainhead of filth and immorality.*
Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.
You can still evangelize. I’m pretty sure that the people who would have listened to you before will continue not engaging in same-sex relationships, even if marriage is a legal option.
Argument #10
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.
If all you were doing was praying, I wouldn’t be concerned. Pray all you want. But quit trying to legislate your morality. Perhaps you could just trust that if your god wants to answer your prayers to prevent same-sex marriage, he will. On his own. A god so powerful surely doesn't need a constitutional amendment to ensure his will is done.
* Yes, my answers to arguments 4, 5, 6, and 8 are little more than sarcasm. However, there really isn’t anything else to offer to blatant bigotry. The arguments assume that homosexuality is a “perversion” and “wrong.” I’ve only heard people be able to justify this (and often weakly) from a religious standpoint. We (theoretically) live in a society governed in a secular manner. The suggestion is not that you be required to change your religion. The suggestion is that people who don’t follow your religion can live without being subjected to the otherwise unsupported laws derived from your religion.
