Marriage Update: We need you to
speak out
Illinois Family Institute – David E.
Smith – Laurie Higgins – 1/1/2013
This article is a good summary of
homosexual arguments against traditional marriage and why traditional marriage
must be defended and upheld.
Here are some
talking points that may be helpful in crafting letters or talking to
friends:
- Make the letter personal about you,
your family, your children or someone important in your life who have been
negatively affected by homosexuality.
- Those who identify as homosexual
have the freedom to make lifetime commitments to whomever they wish. They have
no right to redefine the institution of marriage for everyone
else.
- Governments recognize the sexually
complementary institution of marriage in order to protect the inherent rights
and needs of children, which assures the continued health and stability of the
country.
- Children have an inherent, inviolate
right to know and be raised whenever possible by their biological parents, a
right that is further undermined by homosexual
marriage.
- If the government severs marriage
from gender, sexual complementarity and procreative potential, there is no
rational reason to prohibit plural marriage or incestuous
marriage.
- Although subjective feelings of love
are important to those choosing to marry, they are irrelevant to the
government’s reasons for being involved in recognizing, regulating and promoting
marriage. The government is involved in marriage centrally to protect the
rights and needs of children by securing the connection of children to their
biological parents.
- Despite assurances of religious
protections, people of faith will lose religious rights if same-sex “marriage”
is legalized.
- The freedom to decide what our
children and grandchildren are taught in schools will come under attack.
Proponents of the normalization of homosexuality will vigorously push for even
elementary school children to be taught about homosexuality via the topic of
“diverse family structures” and “family diversity.”
- Despite what “progressives” say,
legal prohibitions of same-sex “marriage” are not equivalent to bans on
interracial marriage. First, homosexuality is not analogous to race. Second,
bans on interracial marriage introduced a criteria that was not essential to
marriage: race. One’s race has nothing to do with the central defining feature
of marriage: procreative potential.
- Society does not create marriage;
society merely recognizes a type of relationship that exists and predates the
state.
Northwoods Patriots - Standing up for Faith, Family, Country - northwoodspatriotscomm@gmail.com
Posts
I hear your concerns but I remained unconvinced that any of these arguments are relevant to the discourse.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality is not analagous to plural marriage or incest. Strangely enough it is groups with extreme branches in the religious right that are most prone to plural marriage and incest. The mormon church was a huge source of donations on Prop 8 in California. I am not saying all religious extremism is prone to incest or plural marriage. If you are offended then you may understand how it feels to have homosexuality compared to incest or plural marriage. It is not relevant.
Although you may feel homosexuals have the same rights to express their committed love in the United States this is not the case. As a group lamenting our taxation system you should be aware that it is nearly impossible to pass assets between a same sex union in the United States without creating a taxable event not witnessed by opposite sex couples. It is nearly impossible to visit loved ones in the hospital without drafting legal documents at an expense not incurred by heterosexuals. If a person in the United States falls in love with someone of the opposite sex in the United States they have ways to help get citizenship for their loved one in order to remain in teh same country. Finally imagine how it feels for someone in a same sex union to subsidize medical benefits for their colleagues' families while they are unable to get benefits for their partner.
The system is not equal. We are not looking to get married in your church. You probably wouldn't be invited to the wedding so you don't have to worry. It is merely a desire to have the same legal rights to defend our families that you are afforded every day. Although I have many freedoms in this amazing country I am not allowed the same freedoms of heterosexuals.
If you are vapid enough to indicate that I still have these rights if I choose to marry someone of the opposite sex I realize that I am trying to reason with something demonstrating the cognitive skills of a Pontiac Aztek.
Andy