|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | {{Homosexuality}} | | {{Homosexuality}} |
| − | '''Same-sex "marriage"''' (also called '''sodomite "marriage"''', '''homosexual "marriage"''' or '''"gay marriage"''') is a [[liberal]] attempt to advance the [[homosexual agenda]] and force the public to pay benefits for relationships that are not procreative and typically are not even monogamous. This is not only contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system and in direct violation of the [[Bible]]<ref>It's a direct challenge to and nullification of Genesis 2:24, ''Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife''; of coarse, not every child has a mother and father anyway, so God must be unfair as well, the atheist theorizes.</ref> and most other religious teachings,<ref>"Same-sex marriage uses force of secular law to justify what the scripture of ''most modern religions'' has clearly labeled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. At least one nation that has adopted same-sex "marriage" now requires the largest Christian church there to perform them also, despite its clear contradiction with the [[Bible]]</ref> but also antisocietal as can be shown by scientific device of [[Gedankenexperiment#Marriage vs. Homosexual Life-style|thought experiment]] used for investigation of nature of things. | + | '''Same-sex "marriage"''' should be legal |
| − | | |
| − | On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in the case of ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'', illegally claimed that same-sex "marriage" was "legal" in all 50 states, despite not having the power or authority to make such a ruling. As a result, local, state and federal laws (as well as state constitutional provisions) that distinguish between heterosexual marriage and same-sex "marriage" are claimed by same-sex "marriage" supporters to be "unconstitutional" under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though, in fact, no such "right" to same-sex "marriage" exists in the Fourteenth Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Same-sex "marriage" is legal in twenty-two countries: the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Brazil]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], [[South Africa]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Portugal]], [[Iceland]], [[Argentina]], [[Denmark]], [[Uruguay]], [[Finland]], [[Luxembourg]], [[Ireland]], [[New Zealand]],<ref>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10878200</ref> [[France]], the [[United States]], [[Germany]]<ref>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41460032</ref> and the [[United Kingdom]] (excluding Northern Ireland) Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex "marriage" is legal in the states of [[Quintana Roo]], [[Chihuahua]], [[Guerrero]] and [[Coahuila]], as well as in [[Mexico City]], a federal district similar to Washington, D.C. Other countries, such as [[Colombia]] and [[Chile]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref><ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-05/tasmania-to-back-gay-marriage-intensifying-pressure-on-gillard]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]], the adoption of same-sex "marriage" has led to a loss in respect for the marriage institution itself even for traditional couples. In [[Massachusetts]], the legalization of same-sex "marriage" led to a decline in property values.<ref>Florida, Richard, and Charlotta Mellander. "Journal of Economic Geography." There Goes the Metro: How and Why Bohemians, Artists and Gays Affect Regional Housing Values. Oxford University Press, 8 July 2009. Web. 30 June 2015. <http://joeg.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/2/167>.</ref> Also in response to the introduction of same-sex "marriage" the State Department of Public Health changed marriage certificates to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of husband and wife.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In May 2012, voters in [[North Carolina]] banned both same-sex "marriage" and homosexual unions. North Carolina thereby became the 29th state to pass an [[amendment]] against same-sex "marriage", by a huge 61-39% margin.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/north-carolina-voters-ban-gay-marriage-civil-unions/story?id=16307081#.T6nLvOjlvKY</ref> [[Barack Obama]]—heavily dependent on donations from homosexuals for his reelection—rushed to prop up the homosexual agenda by endorsing same-sex "marriage" after its stunning defeat in this [[swing state]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some studies and polls about same-sex "marriage" conducted in a few countries generally claim support for same-sex "marriage" increases with higher levels of education, and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations due to propaganda campaigns targeting the younger generation.<ref>{{cite web|title=Survey - Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights|url=http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/|publisher=[[Public Religion Research Institute]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Pew Forum: Part 2: Gay Marriage|url=http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Poirier|first=Justine|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Let's Make a Change|url=http://www.montrealites.ca/justice/same-sex-marriage-lets-make-a-change.html|publisher=Montréalités Justice|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Data Points: Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Chart-Support-for-Legal/64683/|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education|date=16 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Support for Same‐Sex Marriage in Latin America|url=http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0844.enrevised.pdf|publisher=[[Vanderbilt University]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref> Polls show the most religious people regardless of age are more likely to oppose it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Waldman|first=Steven|title=A Common Missed Conception|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=[[Slate (magazine)]]|date=19 November 2003}}</ref> Prior to 2012, in each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue, the public rejected same-sex marriage laws by a small majority.<ref>{{cite news|title=Maine voters reject gay-marriage law|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627|accessdate=20 September 2012|newspaper=Associated Press via [[The Guardian]]|date=4 November 2009}}</ref> However, In 2012, [[Maine]], [[Washington]] and [[Maryland]] voted in favor of same-sex marriage. In April 2013, [[Rhode Island]] became the tenth state to begin recognizing same-sex marriage.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ri-track-10th-state-gay-marriage-19038311</ref> Additionally, recent polls from liberal poll organizations claim to indicate that more than half of Americans "support" same-sex "marriage", approximately 53%.<ref name=Gallup2011>{{cite web|last=Newport|first=Frank|title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx|publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=ABC2012>{{cite web|url=http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf |title=ABC News/Washington Post poll: Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition – 23 May 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=CNN2012>{{cite web|url=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf |title=CNN Opinion Research – May 29-31, 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Campaigns advocating same-sex "marriage" were at the forefront of the [[Homosexual rights advocacy|homosexual rights movement]]'s attempt to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same moral plane as [[heterosexuality]], overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals would keep their (according to many Christians) sinful acts hidden. Some opponents of same-sex "marriage" claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex "marriage", the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex "marriage" are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include homosexual partners, and the same tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Current [[United States]] [[law]] defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex "marriage" entered into in another state. However, due to the liberal [[Supreme Court]] overturning section 3 of DOMA as "unconstitutional", the federal government currently recognizes homosexual "marriages" as equal to the traditional, correct marriage. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. <!-- There are also laws to protect children from being exploited (see [[statutory rape]], incest, [[child molesting]]). These laws enshrine the scriptural teachings of [[Christianity]] and have the support of [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]]. THESE SENTENCES ARE NON-SEQUITORS BUT SHOULD BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE EDITS BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHRISTIAN IDEALS OF CONSERVAPEDIA -->
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Background ==
| |
| − | Public opinion about same-sex "marriage" has shifted rapidly. In the United States, the period between 2012 and 2015 marked a rapid shift in the public debate on this issue. While religious teachers continue to discuss this important topic, the matter has not received much public discussion since 2015. Indeed, in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, it was not a major issue raised by the candidates. Of the responses in a May 2016 Gallop Poll, 61% favored same-sex "marriage" and 37% opposed it.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/Marriage.aspx Retrieved March 3, 2017</ref> Responses in a 2016 Pew Forum poll found that only 27% of white evangelical Protestants and 39% of black Protestants favor same-sex "marriage" while it is supported by a majority of other religious groups and 80% of the nonaffiliated category.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/|date=May 12, 2016|title=Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage|accessdate=March 7, 2017}}</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and 37, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Maine]], [[Washington]], [[Rhode Island]], [[Iowa]], [[California]], [[Delaware]], [[Minnesota]], [[New Jersey]], [[Hawaii]], [[Illinois]], [[Oregon]], [[Idaho]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Wyoming]], [[Montana]], [[Colorado]], [[Arizona]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Florida]], [[North Carolina]], [[South Carolina]], [[Virginia]], [[West Virginia]], [[Alaska]] and [[New Mexico]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex "marriage" licenses, although most of these states were illegally forced to do so by activist federal courts acting outside of their mandate. Only in [[Maine]], [[Maryland]], and [[Washington]] has same-sex "marriage" been approved by popular vote. [[Minnesota]] was the first state, in 2012, in which voters voted against a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Same-sex "marriages" were legal in [[Alabama]] for one month in 2015 following a federal court decision, but were halted by the Alabama Supreme Court pending the June 2015 ruling of the United State Supreme Court on the matter. Same-sex "marriages" are recognized by the federal government since the overturning of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, however, recognition varies between departments of the federal government, with some departments referring to the legality or non-legality of the "marriage" in which the "couple" resides, and others referring to the legality or non-legality of the "marriage" according to where the "marriage" took place.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex "marriage" itself—must honor same-sex "marriages" performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex "marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex "marriage".
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex "marriage" licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex "marriage" was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp ''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'']</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. Washington later legalized same-sex "marriage". [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples.<ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex "marriage" <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html "New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage"]</ref> The state began issuing same-sex "marriage" licenses in January, 2010.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the fall of 2009, a same-sex "marriage" bill was introduced to the [[Washington, D.C.]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly homosexual). After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses,<ref>[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html ''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'']</ref> the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. Once signed by the Mayor, the bill went to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html "DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage"]</ref> it passed and became law in 2010.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Five years after ''Hernandez v. Robles'', a New York Court of Appeals case in which the court declined to legalize same-sex "marriage" in New York via judicial fiat, the New York legislature voted for same-sex "marriage" on June 24, 2011.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-gay-marriage-passes-in-new-york</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Same-sex "marriages" were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008,<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html "California Votes for Prop 8"]</ref> through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of Maine approved a same-sex "marriage" bill in May 2009 <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html "Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine"]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html "Maine rejects same-sex marriage law"]</ref> Same-sex "marriage" eventually became legal again in California in 2013 after the United States Supreme Court declined to rule on the case after deciding that those defending it did not have standing to do so, after the gubernatorial administration of California and the attorney general of California had refused to defend the law.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In Israel, all marriages must be performed by a religious organization - there is no "civil" marriage. Specific religions may determine the definition of marriages that they perform, and none currently recognize same-sex couples. However, a Supreme Court decision determined that Israel must recognize all marriages performed outside the country, same-sex or opposite-sex. In September 2011, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in Israel attempted to marry homosexual males to homosexual females so they could start a conventional family. However, the plan drew criticism both from liberals, who said the plan was meant to discourage homosexuality, and from conservatives, who argued the plan promoted loveless relationships.<ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the Netherlands overseas territories of [[Aruba]], [[Curacao]], and [[Sint Maarten]], same-sex "marriages" are not performed, but all marriages performed in the mainland portion of the country (including same-sex) are recognized. In [[Brazil]], same-sex civil unions can be converted to marriages by state judges on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, the state of [[Rhode Island]] recognizes, but does not perform, same-sex "marriages." Furthermore, [[California]] recognizes all same-sex "marriages" performed in or out of state before the passage of [[Proposition 8]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some opponents of same-sex "marriage" believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex "marriage" is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Conservative Judaism (no relation to the political philosophy known as "conservatism"), synagogues and rabbis are allowed, but not required, to recognize and perform same-sex "marriages". Reform Judaism also allows rabbis to use "good faith" on this issue, but as the least-religious branch of Judaism, they take this stance on most issues. Additionally, homosexuality (and by extension same-sex "marriage") is forbidden in [[Islam]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | Many [[libertarian]]s argue [[marriage privatization|eliminating any legal definition of "marriage"]] and simply granting legal benefits to all couples under a neutral name would solve this problem and satisfy both sides. This is called "marriage privatization". Many religious conservatives still feel this is unacceptable - see that article for more details.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Public attitudes toward same-sex "marriage" parallels attitudes toward homosexuality.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Morality==
| |
| − | Social [[conservatives]] regard same-sex "marriage" as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Some social liberals try to use this debate as an excuse to take the socially-conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies, the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony,"<ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex "marriage"'' (which is also the phrasing preferred by Conservapedia), with quotation marks around the word "marriage," to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that that same-sex unions are counterfeits.<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Use of the term "same-sex 'marriage'" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists. They argue that heterosexual people are allowed to marry and so the homosexual population should be given that right too.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Some advocates of same-sex "marriage" view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Motivation for advocating it==
| |
| − | [[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
| |
| − | [[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex "marriage" is not to secure the benefits of marriage for homosexual couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
| |
| − | :...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 destroy marriage altogether. 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, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Homosexuals are beginning to admit they want what Mollenkott proposes, namely the destruction of the concept of [[monogamy]] and [[traditional marriage]] altogether. What they really are after is a society that recognizes every sexual arrangement as normal - even [[group sex]]ual liaisons and [[polygamy]].<ref name=pjones>
| |
| − | Peter Jones, ''The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality'', page 22</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In reality nobody is trying to stop homosexuals from [[Sexual intercourse|doing what they want to do]], or tell them they can't live together, or have a domestic partnership. The only reason many people oppose same-sex "marriage" is to prevent the definition of "marriage", more of a religious institution than a legal one, from changing, and to avoid being forced to have to recognize a union between two persons of the same gender as if it were equivalent to a marriage between a man and a woman.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Child-rearing and adoption==
| |
| − | According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more homosexual or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on homosexual adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam.<ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Several states, including [[New York]], allow any two adults living together to adopt a child regardless of marital status or sex. This law provided a method for same-sex couples to adopt children even before New York legalized same-sex "marriage".
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Homosexual promiscuity==
| |
| − | ''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and promiscuity]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to "marry" would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Homosexual violence and abuse==
| |
| − | In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]]. These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders{{fact}} (see [[Homosexuality and Murders]]). The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in same-sex domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of homosexuals felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for homosexual rights.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While homosexual domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Family breakdown ==
| |
| − | Bishop Harry Jackson has shown how same-sex "marriage" is causally linked to the breakdown of the family in recent decades, particularly the black family.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/harryrjacksonjr/2008/10/13/the_naacp_abandons_the_black_family The NAACP Abandons the Black Family]</ref> As noted in the 1965 [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan|Moynihan]] Report,<ref>[http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm The Negro Family: The Case for National Action]</ref> the breakdown of the African-American family is a national concern. He has attributed support for same-sex "marriage" in the District of Columbia and Maryland to a demonic force called the [[Queen of Heaven]].<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GMnaW-0rQ-U Harry Jackson, Cindy Jacobs Rally Against Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Subsequent to same-sex "marriage" becoming law in [[Massachusetts]], property values declined and many left the State, in contrast to those states that do not recognize it.{{citation needed}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | One study published in liberal magazine ''Time'', however, claims that the children of same-sex couples or homosexual parents have equal or higher scores in psychological evaluations as well as cognitive. Researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco, and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, led a study focused on planned lesbian families in which a lesbian couple had chosen to adopt children or undergo artificial insemination to start a family. The study claims that these children were shown to have higher self esteems and confidence which in turn enabled them to have higher test results academically than their straight-parent counterparts.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html],Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Same sex union stability has been studied in Norway and Sweden using registered partnerships.
| |
| − | Although in these countries patterns in divorce risks are rather similar in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, marriages and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. Divorce risk for female partnerships is practically double that for male partnerships. The authors argued a higher propensity for divorce in same-sex couples is perhaps not surprising given this group’s lower exposure to normative pressure to maintain lifelong unions.
| |
| − | <ref>[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1353/dem.2006.0001],Andersson, Gunnar, et al. "The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden." Demography 43.1 (2006): 79-98.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Social dysfunction==
| |
| − | Legalization of same-sex "marriage" is correlated with social dysfunctions<ref>[http://www.allaboutlove.org/same-sex-marriage-countries.htm Same Sex Marriage Countries]</ref> that states and countries banning it have avoided. States and countries legalizing same-sex "marriage" have markedly different levels of quality of life from those that have banned it. For example, 8 of the 10 states with the highest median income have legalized same-sex "marriage" (Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Delaware, and California).
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Collapse of civilizations==
| |
| − | Some ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed, while some that refused to recognize it escaped that fate.<ref>[http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Slippery-Slope-Of-Same-Sex-Marriage&id=824855 The Slippery Slope of Same Sex Marriage]</ref> However, [[Correlation is not causation]], and there is not even a large enough data set to get a correlation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Legal disadvantages for heterosexuals==
| |
| − | Legalization of same-sex "marriage" would confer [[special rights]] on homosexuals, thereby placing heterosexuals at a legal disadvantage.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/December/New-Jersey-Lawmakers-Drop-Same-Sex-Marriage-Bill/ New Jersey Lawmakers Drop Same-Sex Marriage Bill], from [[CBN]]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The fact that the strongest predictor of support for same-sex "marriage" is level of education<ref>[http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090902/ARTICLES/909021016?p=1&tc=pg UF study: Education best predicted support for gay marriage ban]</ref> shows that [[brainwashing]] into [[professor values]] has a corrosive effect on morality.
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to Bill Borst, a regular substitute radio host for conservative [[Phyllis Schlafly]] on WSIV, rights are a [[zero-sum game]].<ref>[http://bbprof.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-new-three-rs/ The New Three R's], by Bill Borst</ref> If this is true, granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==See also==
| |
| − | *[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]
| |
| − | *[[Anti-Defamation League]]
| |
| − | *[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
| |
| − | *[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
| |
| − | *[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
| |
| − | *Marriage vs. Homosexual Life-style in [[Gedankenexperiment#Marriage vs. Homosexual Life-style|Thought experiment]]
| |
| − | *[[Same-sex marriage bans]]
| |
| − | *[[Christian Nations Rejecting Homosexual Marriage]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | {{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==External links==
| |
| − | *[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
| |
| − | *[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Hollywood Values]]
| |
