It’s all LOVE!

22 Mar

Prepare yourselves; I need to rant.

I’ve spent the last hour or so reading an article by James Dobson of Focus on the Family, called “11 Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage,” [which you can access here ] and whether or not I have any readers left on this blog, I feel compelled to at least react.

I’m just gonna go ahead and dive in. Here are the eleven reasons. I can only give a full reaction to #1, because unfortunately, this article has been taken off their website, so I could only read the first point in full, but the others pretty much speak for themselves.

1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.

2. Children will suffer most.

3. Public Schools in every state will embrace homosexuality. (You’re right. We should keep them the way they are now, where kids are committing suicide because of bullying. Let’s not “embrace” it. That would be bad.)

4. Adoption  laws will be instantly obsolete. (I’m really sad I didn’t get to read this one. I’m interested in how he could possibly draw that conclusion.)

5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.

6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.

7. Social Security will be severely stressed.

8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized. (Funny, considering he doesn’t support the religious freedom to believe that people of the same gender could love each other.)

9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead. (Because we’re the FIRST people to think of this, of course!)

10. The gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed.

11. The culture war will be over, and the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah.” (Matthew 24:37)

Okay. Whew. There’s a lot in there, but I really just want to share a few quotes from his first installment (dealing with #1).

We’ve all heard his polygamy argument, so I’ll spare the rant on that one (because I obviously don’t think that gay marriage is going to lead to people marrying their pets. That’s just absurd.), but his definition of marriage in this quote struck me as particularly interesting:

“Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices.”

The 4 things he sites as the foundation of marriage are interesting to me. Think about it. Polls as of late actually SHOW “overwhelming support of people” (I believe the last one I read was 52%? Don’t quote me on that.), which would make the legal precedent in need of an overhaul. All that’s left are tradition and theology, and I don’t want ANYONE’s theology making the laws of my country, even my own. Tradition is based on the views of the people, and it changes with people’s ideas change.

This is my favorite quote from the part of the article that I was able to read. I hope it makes you laugh as much as it made me laugh.

“The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more shocking and outrageous objectives. In the present instance, homosexual activists, heady with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. This is the real deal: Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to create an entirely different legal structure.”

If you got lost somewhere in there, yes, you read it correctly. He said that the “real deal” is that “most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other.” A very broad statement that, surprise surprise, has NO facts or statistics backing it. Guys. They’ve been tricking us this WHOLE TIME! Those sneaky bastards. The gays want to TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY. This isn’t about marriage. It isn’t about the fact that they love each other and want their unions to be protected and recognized by the country to which they pay taxes and in which they live. “Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person?” Pshhhh.

Last quote, I promise.

“With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law.[What?] This is clearly where the movement is headed. If you doubt that this is the motive, read what is in the literature today. Activists have created a new word to replace the outmoded terms infidelity, adultery, cheating and promiscuity. The new concept is polyamorous. It means the same thing (literally “many loves”) but with the agreement of the primary sexual partner. Why not? He or she is probably polyamorous, too.”

I’m not condoning or opposing polyamorous relationships (it’s none of my damn business, thank you very much), but I don’t think you can use that as the “new definition” of infidelity. Polyamorous people have an agreement about having other sexual partners, so it’s not the same thing.

Sorry, I know that was a little rambl-y. But don’t say you weren’t warned.

I’m not trying to assert myself as some know-it-all on all the intricacies of this debate; I honestly don’t keep up with the legal action as much as I know I should, and want to, but this simply infuriated me. It’s a simple, black and white case to me. Whether or not I “believe in” gay marriage (which I wholeheartedly do, by the way), my  religious beliefs should not be the basis for the legal system. People should be free to believe what they want, and people should be allowed to get married if they want. He makes all sorts of arguments, but the only ones that have any basis are the ones based on the Bible, which is HIS worldview. I believe in religious freedoms, absolutely, but when you’re trying to tell people how to live their lives, and denying them rights that you yourself hold, you cross the line. Your beliefs are the guidelines by which you live your life, and they don’t extend past that.

Much (gay and straight!) love! Thanks for suffering through that (or skimming- no judgement) with me. 🙂


One Response to “It’s all LOVE!”

  1. Kit March 23, 2011 at 12:43 am #

    I love you because you are intelligent. Applause for a woman who believes in a cohesive, thorough, and responsible definition of freedom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: