How Sexual Relations Harm the Participants
- It "deprives the participants of the opportunity to create life in the eternities." Try telling a gay guy that he should dump his boyfriend because they won't be able to have spirit children in the hereafter.
- "The homosexual lifestyle tends toward promiscuity." No, the homo sapiens lifestyle tends toward promiscuity. There are plenty of studies about the claim that gays have too much sex--she cites a source which refers to studies done more than 25 years ago that support her argument. But I know how to use Google too, and in just a few short minutes I found a reference that disagrees with her reference and one that agrees with her to the point of absurdity.
- "One of the reasons sexual union within the bonds of marriage is so joyful is because God Himself is a part of the union." So married atheists are lying when they say they have great sex?
Reasons Why Same-Gender Marriage Harms Children
- "Children need both genders as parents in order to be whole and happy. We need only look to our prisons, full of children from one parent families, for proof of this fact." That's not proof, that's simply a correlation--which, of course, does not imply a cause-and-effect relationship. I'd be willing to bet that the reasons children from one parent families tend to wind up incarcerated are more closely tied to the family's finances. And there's also the possibility that one parent can rarely keep a steady job, provide for all a child's emotional needs and guide a child's moral development simultaneously with complete success. A devoted gay couple can surely provide all those things.
- "Legalizing same-gender marriage will require schools to teach its validity, which equates to indoctrination of children over the objections of their parents." I think this is silly. All it will require schools to teach is its legal validity. When I learned about Roe v. Wade in history classes, my teachers didn't tell me we should all go out and get abortions. They just talked about the court ruling. Sometimes the floor was open for debate, but the teachers never told us what to think about the moral aspects of the issue. It's the parent's responsibility to teach children morality--at home I was given the gospel standards and a moral context for the historical fact that I learned in school.
Reasons Why Same-Gender Marriage and Even Same-Gender Civil Unions Harm Society
- "If same-sex marriage is legalized, any expression of disagreement with it becomes illegal discrimination." Calm down, Orwell. That seems unlikely. She refers to an article citing a rash of tough and unjust anti-discrimination laws in Canada following its legalization of gay marriage. But the article itself admits that some of these measures are being rolled back. That, to me, seems like Canada just had some pretty weird growing pains. Besides, I don't think this country repeating Canada's experience is a foregone conclusion considering our differences.
- "...any person who [believes] homosexual relations to be wrong based on religious convictions would be required to betray their consciences by condoning homosexuality...it hampers religious freedom." What happens when gay marriage becomes legal nationwide? Gays can get married to each other in any state and every person in the country can still pick what church to go to. There won't be a state religion. Religious freedom won't be compromised. Furthermore, people will still be able to speak out against stuff they don't like about the government, just as they do now. If you're worried that you'll be forced to condone homosexuality, remember that nobody can stop you from telling all your friends how filthy you think homosexuality is.
- "It defines our culture as an immoral one." Really? From the Mormon perspective, our culture is already shot to hell. We have drugs, gangs, murder, rape, abortion, coffee, and Ponzi schemes. The entertainment we so ravenously consume frequently glorifies sex, violence and crime, promotes materialism and sensationalism, and may contain more than a few swear words. Besides, the state recognizing gay marriage could be construed as the government accepting those evil immoral deeds going on in bedrooms across the country. You could say that the country is finally being honest about itself by admitting that gays exist and that they're people too. Isn't honesty moral?
- "If marriage between two men or two women is legal, we must also allow polyamorous groups...polygamy should then also be legal." Here we have a Mormon saying that gay marriage is wrong because it opens doors to...polygamy. Doesn't she realize she'll be a polygamous wife in the celestial kingdom?
- "If two people should be allowed to marry solely based on whether they have an emotional bond, then there is no reason to assume the marriage will have any permanence. The partners can change whenever the emotional bonds change." Yes. An impermanent marriage often ends in divorce. In fact, almost half of the marriages in the US end in divorce. Impermanence in marriage is nothing new.
- "Marriage is not just about recognizing bonds of affection or romance. It is about a union fulfilled by procreation and family life." Interesting that the traditional marriage vows ("to have and to hold," "in sickness and in health," etc.) don't mention anything about procreation or family life. Just two people's commitment to each other.
Legal Arguments to Support Keeping Marriage Between a Man and a Woman Only
- "The government is not in the business of affirming our loves." That sounds like a good argument for...eradicating legal marriage entirely?
- "What is at issue in the debate...is whether the government will force every citizen...to recognize and affirm same-gender relationships as marriages." Because it would be so traumatic for you to admit that the two guys that live next door have what the government calls a marriage? What do you lose from this? Nobody's asking you to knock on every homosexual couple's door and sheepishly admit to them that you realize they are married. I think you give the government too much sinister credit for forcing people to do things.
- "If we view sexual orientation as being more like religion than race, then we will understand why those who are religious don't want someone else's "religion" imposed upon them." Why would we ever view sexual orientation like a religion? If you don't like your religion, you can switch to a better one. Or you can abandon it altogether. You haven't chosen your race or sexual orientation. You can't simply decide to suddenly be Asian instead of white or straight instead of gay. And you can't remove yourself from sexual attraction or skin color altogether. Furthermore, this is not a case of gay marriage being "imposed" on anyone. A government employee is not going to come to your house and force you to take a gay lover and have a wedding.
- "It is illogical to demand the right to do something that you have no inclination to do. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If a person has no inclination to be married to someone of the opposite sex , they should not demand the right to marry." This assumes that everyone agrees that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. And it's not just the ceremony and the word that gays want. It's also the tax and inheritance benefits. I mean, a general consensus that they're equal beings might be nice, too, but at this rate, it might have to come later.
- "Marriage...provides a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere for raising children, thus perpetuating the nation and strengthening society. Homosexual marriage provides no such conditions." This presupposes that all married heterosexuals are stable, affectionate and moral people. I have a friend whose dad was an abusive drunk. But he was married to my friend's mother, so everything's fine, right? It's a person's character that matters, not his marital status or sexual orientation. Gays can strengthen society by being role models of successful, hard-working, people who give back to their community and support their loved ones--you know, the same ways everyone else can strengthen society.
In her conclusion, this blogger also claims that "God's laws do not change with the trends of the times. They are immutable. They are true in all ages and times." This begs several questions. Why does Mormonism not follow the Law of Moses? Why is the Law of Consecration not in practice? Why does the church currently reject polygamy? I don't expect it to happen, but I wonder how dramatically this woman's world would be rocked when the church finally caves in to societal pressure and condones homosexuality.
She concludes with a call for her readers to stand in holy places and not be moved, to defend their beliefs, and to not sway from their convictions in the gospel when assailed by peer pressure. There is a misconception--especially in the church--that peer pressure is inherently bad. Sometimes peer pressure can be a positive influence. In this case in particular, when the equality of a group is impeded by the bigotry of erroneous religious politics, I think a little peer pressure could do some good.