Resources for Opposing Legalization of Same-sex Marriage

This is a page of various resources for use in the traditional marriage/same-sex marriage debate.

What is Marriage   - Ryan Anderson, Robert George,  and Sherif Girgis

The key question is what basis does government have to be involved in marriage? This is an excellent resource, probably the best single document. It not only sets forth the case for traditional marriage, it also answers many of the common arguments.

Free downloadable PDF

Book

Book summary by Amy Hall

Marriage/Divorce study

People who seriously practice a traditional religious faith—whether Christian or other—have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.

The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice.

What appears intuitive is true. Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes—attend church nearly every week, read their bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples—enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public, and unbelievers….

W. Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that "active conservative Protestants" who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.

Setting the Record Straight: The Truth About HomosexualMarriage video (part 1)

Intro and case against Homosexuality from the Bible

Setting the Record Straight: The Truth About HomosexualMarriage video (part 2) 

Policy – the public case.

Answering Specific Same-sex Marriage Questions

How Can We Show Love to Homosexuals? (Video)

Is Denying Same-sex Marriage Like Denying InterracialMarriage? 

 

Race/Sex/Marriage

Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Marry Whom They Love? 

Should Homosexual Couples Be Allowed to Adopt? 

Can Homosexuals Change Their Orientation? 

Is Homosexuality Just as Normal as Heterosexuality? 

Are Homosexuals Going to Hell? 

Does Homosexual Behavior in Animals Mean it's Natural forHumans? 

Is 10% of the Population Homosexual? 

Are Homosexuals Born that Way? 

Should Christians Impose Their Moral Standards on Society? 

Can You Have Gay Friends If You Think Homosexual Behavior Isa Sin? 

Does God Punish Gay People for Being Who They Are? 

Is Homosexuality the Worst Sin of All? 

Did Jesus Never Say Anything about Homosexuality? 

Answering a Case for Same-sex Marriage (Video) 

No Holding Back other forms of Marriage

If marriage is anything we want it to be, then it can be ANYTHING!

 

Other Resources 

Discussing Same-Sex Marriage (Audio) – "How do you make a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage rights? Greg answered that on a recent radio show."

Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses – "Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments."

Denying Same-sex Marriage Isn't Unequal Protection – "An Iowa court recently ruled in favor of six same-sex couples who claimed that denying them the right to marry violates the equal protection clause. This argument seems reasonable at first. Straight people can marry. Gays cannot. This is not equal protection. A little reflection, however, reveals how this view is mistaken.''
 

Judge Strikes Down Prop 8 – "Prop 8 makes a very rational classification on the basis of a relevant characteristic—that is, the gender of the participants. Men and women are different, and there's no getting around this. This fact has biological, emotional, psychological, and more ramifications when it comes to families and the creation and rearing of children. The fact is that both male and female are essential to marriage."
 

We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights – "One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it's difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue. Here's the approach I usually take…"
 

Liberal Support for Traditional Marriage – "This self-described liberal Democrat supports California's Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define marriage between one man and one woman because, as the piece so well explains, marriage, as a societal institution recognized by government, is about children."
 

Answering a Case for Same-Sex Marriage (Video) – Alan responds to Zach Wahls's video promoting same-sex marriage.

 

Can Atheists be Good?

This is a perennial question - can an atheist be good? 

 My answer: they can only appear to do good things if we lower the standard for what we call "good." 

 Atheist, Christopher Hitchens, taunts Christians with the question, "Name one good thing a Christian can do that an atheist cannot." Atheists can commit their lives to helping the poor, needy, and downtrodden, even "surrender their body to be burned" for their fellow man (i.e. "be good"), but they cannot fulfill the highest moral imperative - worship God. Apart from the Agape love of the cross, the highest love of man is but a better hate - and not really "good" at all.

Two Out of Three Stinks

This is an article I submitted for publication in local newspapers.

Meatloaf’s song says: "I want you. I need you. But -- there ain’t no way I’m ever gonna love you. Now don’t be sad, cause two out of three ain’t bad." 

Some abortion supporters say abortion’s not the only moral issue. "Let’s agree to disagree on abortion and focus on issues like feeding the hungry and healthcare availability for all."

 Most would agree on these even if we disagreed on the means. So, we’re saying that "two out of three ain’t bad?" Depends on whether abortion is significantly different and higher than the others - just as love is over "wanting" and "needing". 

 Here are two pictures: 

1) You’re serving in a soup kitchen when, through the window, you see a baby crawling onto a busy street. Do you serve the two homeless men in line and then rescue the baby? No! There’s a greater moral imperative to rescue those in immediate peril. 

2)  There are three objects, all spherical. One’s the sun; the others, marbles. Beyond the size difference, there’s another significant difference - the light from one enables us to see the others. 

Either life is intrinsically valuable or not. If it is, there’s a much higher moral imperative to rescue the thousands being killed daily. 

Ignoring this makes a mockery/hypocrisy of caring for others. 

If life has no value and can be ended for discomfort and inconvenience, there’s absolutely no sustainable reason to care for others. Morality becomes a tool for political advantage. 

"Two out of three" is just stinkin' thinking.

Compromising on Rudy

There was a reported meeting of pro-life leaders, including Dr, James Dobson, where the leaders expressed their willingness to vote for a third party candidate rather than support a so-called compromise anti-life/anti traditional family candidate who would promise to do some pro-life/pro-family things - i.e. nominate strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, etc. In the pro-life community, there is debate among honest and sincere people as to whether this is a reasonable Christ-honoring course of action. 

The debate basically breaks down along 2 paths. One group supports Dr. Dobson et al's approach which is in effect a shot across the Republican Party's bow to try to force them to walk the walk , not just talk the talk. The other group, it seems to me, basically argues that fewer unborn babies would die under a compromise candidate who presumably could win against Hillary. To me, this is a lesser evil approach.

Below is something I posted to the blog at Stand to Reason on this subject. This is certainly not an exhaustive treatise on the above options - that may come in time.

One thing I would add is that if the Republican Party nominates a compromise candidate for president, I will immediately change my voter registration from Republican to Independent.

In my opinion there are 2 absolutely non-negotiable moral issues - 1) the sanctity of life, and 2) support for traditional one man one woman marriage for life. 

I will not support a candidate who is not whole heartedly behind these issues. A president has the bully pulpit, national and local speaking opportunities, cabinet appointments, and the veto to help persuade and advance these moral issues. 

The promise to appoint strict constructionist judges, without the heart and will to be aggressively pro-life/pro-family is simply inadequate. 

 Compromise in legislation may be acceptable when it is a case of saving no unborn lives vs saving a few, but compromising on electing a president and the support that gives to his party's apparatus, does not seem to me to be analogous to compromising on legislation. 

I don't care which party it is, but we currently have only one party with planks that support our positions. 

The election of a compromise candidate will all but ensure the pro-life/pro-family voice will be totally ignored in future elections. If the Republican party is made to believe that pro-life and pro-family voters will not vote for a compromise candidate on these issues, then it can make the decision to commit suicide and have a new party rise from the ashes or embrace the strength of these positions.

Only God knows if Hillary Clinton has a chance to win against Mike Huckabee (just using him as an example). I would almost go so far as to say if Huckabee is given a chance to promote his positions, pro-life/pro-family voters get solidly and aggressively behind him, and then he loses, America deserves what it gets and the blame will be on us -- the Christians and their pastors who woke up way too late to the poison we allowed to flourish in our nation. 

We ignored Francis Schaeffer until it was too late. I expect moral leadership on these foundations from a president and I will not vote for one who cannot provide that. 

 God help us.

Moral Relativisim

Below is one of my articles that ran in local newspapers today (7/29/07). Article submissions have a 250 word limit. It's pretty much motherhood and apple pie on the subject - thanks a lot to Greg Koukl and his material from Stand to Reason. 

Is torturing children for personal enjoyment right or wrong?

Surprisingly, some would say, “I don’t like that and would never do it, but who am I to judge?” 

Sound familiar? 

Welcome to the dominant philosophy of our culture – moral relativism. In moral relativism, there are no universal moral absolutes – no Rights, no Wrongs – just preferences. 

Modern tolerance – doing whatever you want with none to say you’re wrong – sounds appealing, doesn’t it? This myth of moral neutrality eliminates categories of good and bad; Hitler’s morals were just different, not evil. 

Phillip Johnson says it’s become more intolerant to “name evil than do it,” but aren’t we denying our humanity when we fail to condemn what’s so obviously Wrong? 

Some things demand judgment! 

Unmask the moral relativist by asking, “You wouldn’t murder, but you think others should decide for themselves?” 

Moral relativism doesn’t fit reality. It’s unlivable; still, it floods in through our education, political, and media establishments. Its allure is freedom from accountability from sin, but denying sin no more eliminates its consequences than naming Gollum’s ring "Precious" made it harmless. 

When “Judge not” is more popular than “For God so loved,” we’ve clearly lost our way. 

The real answer for sin is forgiveness, not denial. 

 A co-worker used to say, “Reality will prevail.” Thank God for the brick walls and pain of reality that signal we’re going down the wrong road, but, oh, the price we pay for our ignorance and lack of conviction. 

Will America wake up in time?

Has LA Sen. David Vitter Undermined His Moral Authority?

Of course, the recent admission by Louisiana Senator David Vitter that he had used prostitutes in the past was like dripping blood to a sea of sharks. 

The media feast on this traditional pro-family advocate is in words and phrases like, sanctimonious, hypocrisy, lost his moral authority, etc - as usual, stink'n think'n is rampant in discussions of this situation. 

 This article is not a comprehensive treatment of the issue. I just want to work out (by writing and hopefully getting some feedback) some thoughts on the stink'n think'n, and, hopefully, help others see the same. 

The first issue to deal with is the moral authority issue. That's the unseen subterranean mole-works undermining the whole foundation. What is the authority behind Sen. Vitter's moral pronouncements? If the authority is David Vitter, then, yes, he has certainly tarnished his authority to speak of his personal subjective beliefs. If his beliefs are universally and objectively true, however, then how has he undermined that moral authority? Isn't it the moral obligation of all to speak these truths regardless of how poorly we may exemplify them? 

Notice that those who raise this issue are telling you something about themselves - they are the "true for you but not for me" moral relativist crowd who do not believe in universal objective truths - besides the universal objective truth that there are no universal objective truths. People with this viewpoint never have the authority to suggest their personal morality as "oughts" for anyone else. 

The next important and related point is that the messenger does not determine the truthfulness of the message. The presence of law-breakers does not invalidate the law. Most murderers and liars know there is both a written law and a higher moral law they have broken. The law is no less true when spoken from the mouth of the sinner than the saint; however, the character of the messenger does determine the credibility with which the message is received -- especially when the message is unpopular (unpolitic). 

Sen. Vitter is a hypocrite living in a universe of hypocrites, if you take the simple minded definition of hypocrisy as saying one thing and doing another. We have all lied, cheated, and stolen, yet we tell our children to not lie, cheat, and steal. So, we are all hypocrites by this simple definition. 

Calling someone a hypocrite, using this definition, is like saying, "Welcome to the human race." 

Perhaps a more useful definition of hypocrisy would be advocating for something you know to be untrue. If I taught first graders that 1 + 1 = 1, but used 1 + 1 = 2 when dealing with my bank, then I am a hypocrite. It is in this sense that saying one thing and doing another is true. 

Is behavior contrary to stated belief always a demonstration of hypocrisy (by this definition)?  In Vitter's case, "What do David Vitter's actions prove about what he believes about the sanctity of marriage?" 

On just a little reflection, we all know of times when we do things in violation of what we really believe, and later, we may be sorry that we did them. Unfortunately, we do not know and cannot know with certainty what Sen. Vitter actually believes, but, given the totality of his walk and talk, it is still more reasonable to believe he is expressing his true beliefs in upholding the sanctity of marriage -- even with a substantial moral failure such as this. And, even in the recovery from this failure, he and his wife have exemplified dimensions of that sanctitiy in pursuing the routes of confession and forgiveness. As usual, a person's view of Sen. Vitter will be driven by their philosophy.

Facts are not Enough for Morality

A local atheist had an article in the newspaper saying we should teach logic and good reasoning at the earliest ages in our educational system. He went on to say that some people are simply not persuaded by facts, preferring to cling to their view points butressed by selectively culled facts.

Here is my response:

When Gary Sloan is right, he’s right. I heartily agree all students should be taught sound reasoning skills from the earliest age. The brain has become the least used muscle – politicians, television and radio talk hosts, rappers, and movie stars do our thinking for us. Emotional slogans pass for good reasoning. “Feel” and “think” have become synonymous.

Oh that people did live by facts and good reasoning; then, there would be no legalization of mothers killing their babies. The scientific facts are incontrovertible that from conception the embryo is genus homo sapiens (human being). Neither size, level of development, environment/location, or dependency can be construed as justification for killing the fetus without also justifying killing classes of already-born persons.

Of course, facts alone are insufficient for such moral judgments; values and worldviews come into play. Hidden in the above argument is the value that it’s wrong to take innocent human life - not just wrong for me but wrong for all. Discussion of values opens the door to truth – is there objective, universal truth? Are some things wrong for all people at all times? How about the ancient ritual of placing living babies onto the red-hot arms of idols?

Yes, we need to include good reasoning skills and rules of logic in early education, but that alone, without knowledge of objective and universal truths and values, is like training in the use of hammer and saw without knowing the objective is to build a house.