Skip to comments.Ten myths about gay ‘marriage’
Posted on 10/19/2012 5:42:47 AM PDT by IbJensen
October 18, 2012 - The Prime Minister David Cameron wants to redefine marriage to allow gay couples to marry. Thus far over 600,000 people have signed a petition launched by the Coalition for Marriage(C4M) against these plans which reads simply as follows:
I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.
I have previously written on this issue and have published 24 articles on all aspects of the debate. One of these, Ten reasons not to legalise same-sex marriage in Britain, gives an overview of the main issues.
This week, however, the Coalition for Marriage has published a new leaflet titled Ten reasons why the government is wrong to redefine marriage which is available in pdf format on the C4M website.
It outlines ten myths about the redefinition of marriage.
I have reproduced the text below.
Ten reasons why the government is wrong to redefine marriage
Myth 1 - It will promote marriage
Evidence shows that redefining marriage actually undermines support for marriage in wider society. Neither has it delivered the promised stability for same-sex couples. In Spain, after gay marriage was introduced, marriage rates across the whole population plummeted. In the Netherlands too there has been a significant fall in the marriage rate since marriage was redefined. Same-sex marriage does not promote marriage.
Myth 2 - Marriage has always evolved
Marriage between a man and a woman is not a recent social invention. Everyone knows that marriage predates law, nation and church. It goes back to the dawn of time. Yes, matrimonial law may have been tweaked over the years, but the law has never fundamentally altered the essential nature of marriage: a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman. Samesex marriage would rewrite hundreds of years of British legal tradition and thousands of years of cultural heritage.
Myth 3 - Its all about equality
Same-sex couples already have equality. All the legal rights of marriage are already available to same-sex couples through civil partnerships. Equality doesnt mean bland uniformity or state-imposed sameness. If the Government genuinely wants to pursue equality, why is it banning heterosexual couples from entering a civil partnership? Same-sex couples have equal rights through civil partnerships, but they dont have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else.
Myth 4 - No impact on schools
The current law requires schools to teach children about the importance of marriage. If marriage is given a new definition, it will be endorsed in schools. According to expert legal advice, any teacher who fails to endorse same-sex marriage in the classroom could be dismissed. Parents will have no legal right to withdraw their children from lessons which endorse same-sex marriage across the curriculum. Already supporters of gay marriage are recommending books for use in schools which undermine traditional marriage, and call on schools to get children to act out gay weddings. The effect on schools will be polarising and divisive.
Myth 5 - It wont be a slippery slope
If we redefine marriage once, whats to stop marriage being redefined yet further? If marriage is solely about love and commitment between consenting adults, whats to say we shouldnt recognise threeway relationships? Its already happened in nations that redefined marriage. In Brazil, a three-way relationship was given marriage-like rights by a judge because of civil partnership laws. A similar situation has existed in the Netherlands for several years. In Canada after marriage was redefined, a polygamist launched a legal action to have his relationship recognised in law. When politicians meddle with marriage it all starts to unravel.
Myth 6 - Opponents are just bigots
This slur is meant to shut down debate and stop people thinking for themselves. Nick Clegg landed in hot water over a draft speech which called opponents of redefining marriage bigots. He later retracted the word, but theres no doubt that many who support this radical agenda think anyone who disagrees is not worthy of respect. However, support for traditional marriage has come from many respected academics, lawyers, politicians of all parties, and religious leaders. They all know that redefining marriage would have a profound impact.
Myth 7 - Gay couples want to marry
Polling shows that only a minority of gay people (39 per cent) believe gay marriage is a priority. And according to the Government only 3 per cent of gay people would enter a same-sex marriage. A number of gay celebrities and journalists are themselves opposed to gay marriage. Latest official data shows that only 0.7 per cent of households are headed by a same-sex couple. Not all of them want, or will enter, a same-sex marriage. So, why is such a monumental change being imposed throughout society?
Myth 8 - The public supports it
Seven in ten people want to keep marriage as it is. Other polling which purports to show public support for gay marriage fails to tell respondents that equal rights are already available through civil partnerships. When people are told this crucial fact, most people say keep marriage as it is. MPs say their postbags have been dominated by public opposition to redefining marriage. Ordinary people want the Government to concentrate on reviving the economy and providing better public services, not meddling with marriage.
Myth 9 - Just a modest change
Since we already have civil partnerships, isnt same-sex marriage just a small logical next step? No. Rewriting the meaning of marriage will have a far-reaching impact on society. Over 3,000 laws make reference to marriage. The Government has already admitted that official documents will need to be rewritten to remove words like husband and wife. In France the Government is eradicating the words father and mother from all official documents. The Church of England has warned that it could lead to disestablishment and a constitutional crisis.
Myth 10 - Conscience will be respected
Its not even being respected now. A housing manager from Manchester was demoted and lost 40 per cent of his salary for stating, outside work time, that gay weddings in churches were an equality too far. Conferences and symposiums in support of traditional marriage have been thrown out of venues. Adverts in support of a 600,000-strong public petition in favour of traditional marriage have been investigated as offensive. And all this has taken place before any change to the law has taken place. What will it be like if the law does change? A leading human rights lawyer has outlined the devastating impact of redefining marriage on civil liberties.
Simply, it's abnormal. It is like trying to eat food through one's nose! God made marriage and not man; God set the standard and not man. The Bible shows us continually what happens to those who promote and indulge the sin of homosexuality. Why do people want to rebel against God? That's what sin causes people to do. The only cure is Jesus Christ. The clueless corporate entities that sign on to this sinfulness are doing themselves a horrible disservice. They're stores will suffer from the loss of the business of decent Americans.
This is like saying if we all just printed money in our basements/garages, the economy would be strengthened.
The first myth of “gay marriage” is that it exists.
It doesn’t exist any more than calling a dog’s tail a “leg” will lead to an explosion in the population of five-legged dogs.
There have been variations on this concept occasionally over the millenia, but one thing has never changed - all marriages have included at least one man and at least one woman.
"Gay marriages" are outside that pattern.
Myth #1 is utterly rediculous. It takes genuine maturity, responsibility, and commitment to make marriage actually work, i.e. to go ahead and actually bother despite the price tag assigned to being married. Seeing the declining attitude that people seem to have toward actually growing up and getting a life, it’s rediculous that something as simple as a few people having what they deem to be marriage would have much, if any, effect on the maturity of the populace, which has declined, and has little incentive to actually rise, given the decay of the general economy, decline of religion, and the rise of the welfare state.
this is about legalizing immorality and bad health. There is no way that the human body was intended for the activities the adherents of homosexual “marriage” practice.
The goal is the criminalization of Christianity to the point where government force can be used against those expressing or holding Christian beliefs.
The homogenda is the main vehicle towards this goal today.
and there it is, it’s about the battle against the church, people of faith. WOE TO THOSE THAT CALL EVIL GOOD AND GOOD EVIL
Worse, it’s an attempt to redefine “normal,” to replace God with the State as the arbiter of right and wrong.
The idea is that by redefining literal marriage to include same genders - and which are rampantly non-monogamous - it effectively redefines it to include the joining of anything, and thus, like grade inflation, it reduces its uniqueness and the meaning of marriage and morality, thus promoting non-committal cohabitation.
Behind this is the implicit religious underpinnings of marriage, and which esp. in Scripture Christianity, only and specifically define marriage as being btwn opposite genders of humans, and condemn homosexual unions by precept and in principle, by design and decree. That is good enough for me, while abundant evidence testifies to the deleterious nature of homosexual activity.
On one hand gay “marriage” is a symptom of the rejection of traditional Judaeo-Christian values which was greatly manifest beginning in the 60’s sexual revolution which it is part of, while on the other hand its acceptance promotes the same devaluing of these transcendent values - to the collective hurt of all, and which liberalism works to promote.
>It is like trying to eat food through one’s nose!<
Worse actually, and while the contrary nature of homosexual activity is not restricted to the physical, for God made man and women uniquely compatible and complementary (even in a symbiotic ways) in more ways than physical, yet putting your gas pump into the exhaust pipe of another is neither right nor healthy, no matter how much you love your car and like the perverse thrill you get from the smoke,
Freedom not Sodom!
There’s freedom in America, the land of the red white and blue;
but there still must be laws, things you just can’t do.
You can’t marry your sister, your brother, or the family pet;
a sheep, or a goat - at least not yet!
That how is it with homosexuality, what the Bible calls sodomy;
men lying with men as with women, is perversity!
That they’re not designed that way, tis easy to perceive,
but yielding to sinful desires, man is soon deceived.
A moral wrong is not a civil right; like the sin itself, that’s confusion;
calling evil good and exchanging light for darkness, is sure delusion!
History tells us where this will lead, from societies now in dust,
When a nation casts off the laws of God, and follows it’s own lusts.
Promoting a sin which sends one to Hell from an early grave,
dishonors God and robs man of the Life He gave.
There’s but one answer: the Risen Jesus gave Himself for our sins;
Repent and believe, then truly follow Him!
Your argument is void of any logic. Adding homosexual sex premised couplings does nothing but cheapen real marriage. Libertarians need to stick with fiscal issues as they are morally clueless and can not defend what they can not even hope to understand.
Just say this, its this simple: Marriage between one man and one woman is a REAL marriage. Any other form of “marriage” by definition not a REAL marriage.
Stop giving the fascistic politicians nor the idiot leftist the pleasure of accounting their terms. Simply tell them that what they are trying to call marriage is not a real marriage and there is nothing anyone or anything can do about that.
This will likely pissed them off but that is precisely the point, when they prove to the world that they can’t live with just the State’s lying that they have to force other people to acknowledged that lie their position will be weakened.
Most importantly of all this is about preserving in our mind, hearts, and couture the concept of what a real Marriage is, and therefore a notion of its propose.
This is the war, but this particular battle should be defined as simply: “Real Marriage v.s. ‘Gay marriage’”
Because that is precisely what this conflict is about, the institution and the truth which is inextricably linked to the propose of that institution. Family(reproductive) unions.