Profile
Photos
Comments
We've all heard the argument that letting gays and lesbians marry
will "hurt" heterosexual marriages. Or our country. Or children. Actual
support for these claims is less readily available. Often those making
the argument will resort to argumentative fallacies to back up their
claims. The problem is, there are so many fallacious arguments to choose
from, it's hard to keep it all straight. Pardon the pun.
Well, the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg has just the thing
for you. "The Top Ten Harms for Same-Sex 'Marriage'" is hot off the
presses and it's filled with all of the half-truths, cherry-picked
statistics, manipulated data, distortion, and outright lies a person
needs to argue that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Sprigg separates the harms by "Immediate effects" (1-4) and "Long
term effects" (5-10). Immediate effects include the trashing of
religious liberties (i.e. the freedom to discriminate against gays and
lesbians because God tells you to) and teaching grade school kids to be
gay.
The number one immediate harm caused by gays getting married is the
bilking of taxpayer dollars to "subsidize homosexual relationships." And
just what are gays so shamelessly asking for? Social Security benefits
for their partners and their kids if they die. That's right, same-sex
couples want to help protect their families by receiving benefits from a
system that they themselves have paid into all of their working lives.
In other words, gays are today's Cadillac-driving welfare queens. Talk
about piglets at the public teat.
It's a strange complaint considering that Sprigg also argues that
gays don't stay together anyway and that they don't bother getting
married even when it is legal. He seems to be claiming that legalized
marriage really isn't something that gays want since all gay people
aren't legally married in places where it's legal to do so. Sprigg
points specifically to California, where same-sex marriage "was only
legal for a few months, from the time that the California Supreme Court
ruled in May of 2008 until the voters adopted Proposition 8 in November
of the same year."
Got that? It was only legal for a few months. Now check out Sprigg's
argument: "Press reports have indicated that about 18,000 same-sex
couples got 'married' in California - less than 20% of the total
identified by the Census. By contrast, 91% of opposite-sex couples who
lived together in California were married. In other words, only 9% of
heterosexual couples in California have rejected the institution of
marriage, while over 80% of the homosexual couples rejected 'marriage'
when it was offered to them in 2008."
In other words, those homos who didn't get scramble to get married in
the few months it was legal prove that they don't really want it bad
enough.
Number 10 on the list, and a long term effect, is polygamy. Gays
getting married would mean that all bets are off as far as numerical
combinations of husbands and wives.
Sprigg writes, "If it violates the equal protection of the laws to
deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not
do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the
right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice?"
Okay, wait. Did he just say that not letting gays get married denies
them "their first choice of marital partner?" As if there's a perfectly
acceptable partner of the opposite sex just waiting in the wings? That's
not how it works. Nor is being gay the same thing as being incestuous
or being a pedophile or a polygamist.
To sum up his additional "harms," Sprigg argues that if gays get
married, then heterosexuals will stop getting married so they can screw
around or get married and screw around anyway and then get divorced and
die alone. Regardless, heterosexuals will stop having kids. Apparently
only gays will get married and all children will be intentionally
brought into this world without the love of a mom and a dad. Does that
sound realistic to you? Probably not, but why let that stop us? Sprigg
has raised the bar high for homosexual domination. It would be a shame
to disappoint him.
Everyone deserves that kind of love.
