A right-wing advocacy group, the American family Association, published ten arguments opposing same-sex marriage. Seemingly based on James Dobson’s Marriage under Fire, the points of view condemning same-sex-marriage put forth, lack substance, and draw upon most inappropriate and inconsequential quotes from the Bible to support their arguments.
Actually, the American family Association (AFA) has inadvertently just opened a Pandora’s Box (a dangerous assortment of problems) and brought into public domain several matters only whispered erstwhile, to a full-blown debate. We can roughly categorize the arguments against gay marriage given by AFA as under:
Argument No.1: That the Institution of Marriage Will Suffer Because of the Proposal for Marriage of the same-sex
Point by point:
- Author Stanley Kurtz’s, right-wing Scandinavian studies apparently appear as a model in this article. Unfortunately, Kurtz had tried a failed argument that tried to prove that marriage of the same-sex was responsible for decline in the marriage of heterosexuals In Norway, Denmark and Sweden. The experts lost no time in discrediting his theory.
- The persistent reference to 1:29-32 (Romans) neglects the verse ‘Roman 2:1,’which says that whoever you be, you have no right in passing judgments on others because, in your garb as a judge, you are condemnable yourself, for doing exactly the same thing.
- No worthwhile studies have proven that children brought up in a gay marriage society or lesbian households have misbehaved.
Argument No.2: Polygamy will follow in the footsteps of same-sex marriage.
Since only 33 % of Americans oppose gay marriages, a simple answer to this anxiety is to bring an amendment in the constitution prohibiting polygamy, which will find no opposition. Does this not appear as a better option than arguing against anti-gay rights?
Argument No.3: That same-sex marriage would facilitate easy heterosexual divorces.
The article is promoting the idea of the homosexual-movement even more than it talks about legalizingmarriage of the same-sex. The article does not even try to clarify the reason or its possibility. One can only follow the arguments on the face of it, without really reasoning it out.
Argument No.4: tolerance in schools for same-sex marriage
People who are for marriage of the same-sex are likely to favor forbearance in community schools. The Governor who was Arnold Schwarzenegger, banned a bill favoring same-sex marriage and in the same month, enacted a bill advocating a curriculum based on tolerance for the gays in community schools.
Argument No.5: Adoption as an option for couples of same-sex marriages
The majority of the states like, California, Colorado, Oregon, Connecticut, New Mexico, New Jersey and Illinois, legally allow the concept of adoption by joint sex. Other states desist from objecting to it.
Argument No.6: That foster parent must approve sensitivity training.
This is irrelevant to the subject of same-sex marriage. Besides, a few states need guidance and others do not, but these laws have no part to play concerning this problem.
Argument No.7: That Social Security cannot reimburse same-sex couples.
Gays and lesbians, who lose a spouse, are unable to collect benefits under the Social Security survivor scheme. This is one of the many ways gay married couples endure treatment under federal law that is different from their counterparts who are heterosexual. The estimate is about 4% Americans are gay, and if you assume that only 50% of them will go on to legalize their marriage, the resultant impact is only 2% and the administration could certainly consider bearing this burden graciously.
Argument No.8: That legalizing same-sex marriage in the US may promote it to spread.
Legalizing marriage of the same-sex in the U.S. may influence to persuade further nations to adopt the same, but the US is in no way the pioneers in this, as Canada will go into the annals of history as the first nation to legalize same-sex marriages.
Argument No.9: That evangelism may suffer from propagating marriages of the same-sex
Exactly what does evangelism mean? No modern Christian relates a communal policy creating an obstacle for evangelism. 2000 years ago, Christians bore the brunt of executions by the Romans; and surviving historical papers did not show any obstruction to evangelism. Alteration in marriage law has no direct collision with heterosexual couples, then how would it affect evangelism, which dynasties of Roman Emperors were not able to erase.
Argument No.10: That same-sex marriage would bring God’s wrath upon us
100 million children die of hunger each year and nearly 3000 perished of malaria in 1990s. AIDS is spreading worldwide. An alteration in the marriage law will bring upon us the wrath of God.
Does theology portray God as a sadist? Do you have to invoke sacrifices to appease him? Early Christians believed in heavenly mediation. “Maranatha” invoked Jesus to come to them. The AFA article seems to have forgotten to mention that it is a central part of early Christian teaching.