Lets take it point by point.
Reason #1: Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.
One of the key arguments often heard in support of homosexual civil “marriage” revolves around all the government “benefits” that homosexu¬als claim they are denied. Many of these “benefits” involve one thing—taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager to get their hands on. For example, one of the goals of homosexu¬al activists is to take part in the biggest government entitlement program of all—Social Security. Homosexuals want their partners to be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits when one partner dies.
The fact that Social Security survivors benefits were intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from a former employer has not kept homosexuals from de¬manding the benefit.1 Homosexual activists are also demanding that children raised by a homo¬sexual couple be eligible for benefits when one of the partners dies—even if the deceased partner was not the child’s biological or adoptive parent.
And I am forced to subsidize everyone, to pay into the pool that benefits everyone else as long as they are in a heterosexual marriage? Give me a break. Suppose I have a stay at home partner, I know of a few couples where this is the case. The FRC needs to get itself in check here.
And I’d love to say I’m not paying taxes anymore until I have my full measure of rights. Imagine if the 5% to 10% of LGBT people did that. And what if we got our supportive people to do that? We’d bring the government to it’s knees, that’s what would happen.
Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.
This is something I have a difficult time with. You ask why? Because what is so wrong about everyone being equal? That kids are taught that gay relationships are just as valid as hetero relationships? It’s because they are bigots, plain and simple.
And the FRC can only bring up the cases in Massachusetts which is really a tempest in a teapot. In the five or six states where marriage equality is the rule, there have not been any cases of suits about schools teaching the relationships that are necessarily identical.
And while I’m on the subject, all the ‘arguments’ brought up by the FRC and anti-equality bigots all happened in a) States that didn’t have marriage equality at all and b) That had venues that were PUBLIC in purpose.
Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.
Ok, I have to get it out of my system. Boo fucking hoo! Look, your religious liberties are maintained. But as I’ve said before and will now say again, you keep your God out of my government, and I will keep my government out of your God.
You’ve got every right to shout it from the tree tops, but you have no right to tell me who I can or cannot marry.
And of course they bring up the Catholic Charities organization in Boston. Thing is, they neglect to mention that CC didn’t give up the adoption services because gays tried to adopt, they gave it up because they CHOSE to do so. Big difference there.
The next one brings up a “What the fuck?” moment for me.
Fewer people would marry.
So let me get this straight so to speak. Deny gay people the right to marry the person of their choosing, and everyone will want to get married. But let us marry and then nobody wants to marry?
The reality is that yes, marriage rates are in fact declining. They’ve been declining for the last 30+ years. Why? Think it about it for a moment, the last 30+ years has had the first generation to grow up with a single parent, or that have gone through a divorce.
The last thing they want to do is marry someone. So the bigots really have no argument here.
When a relatively small percentage of same-sex
couples—even among those already living together
as partners—even bother to seek legal
recognition of their relationships, while an overwhelming
majority of heterosexual couples who
live together are legally married, it suggests that
homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals
to reject the institution of marriage or its legal
I think they’re using red herring arguments in this one. It’s not that we don’t want the rights and responsibilities of marriage, it’s just that in the cases in California and Maine we’ve seen how the bigots motivate the people to strip us of our rights in two cases so far. And we also see how they’re trying to repeal marriage equality to this day in other states. So maybe, just maybe we’re waiting for a friendly U.S. Supreme Court or at least one that understands the Constitutional ramifications of not giving us full equality to make it the law of the land, impervious to the efforts of the bigots to repeal once more.
Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.
They think only gay people are sluts? Oh my goodness, can I tell some stories! Only they aren’t about the gay people but the STRAIGHT people. While the bigots at the FRC might want to believe we’re raving sexual maniacs, we don’t hold a CANDLE to the depravity of the straights.
Lets see, I’ve known a number of straight men and women who were for lack of a better words, very sexually promiscuous, and they were distributed equally among both single and married. I have been regaled with tales that would blister paint at forty yards! But yet the bigots at FRC, they’ll point the finger at us without addressing the larger issues surrounding sexual infidelity.
Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.
Not for anything but the bigots at FRC are REALLY grasping for straws here. Um, with a divorce rate hitting 50% in the heterosexual class, is it any wonder that we might see similar rates in the LGBT community?
Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
And their point is? There have been kids being raised with single male and female parents for a long time now. In a lot of those cases, no deficits. And the studies done thus far indicate that kids brought up by same sex parents are well adjusted just like the kids brought up by a mother and father. There is no difference.
A friend of mine in the psych trade puts it succinctly: Love and consistency are what really matter. And think about another little factoid for a moment, gay couples actually WANT their kids as opposed to any old sloppy hetero hookup that results in the spawn of a one night stand.
More children would grow up fatherless.
This one is ludicrous. What about a kid growing up with two fathers? That ought to make heads at the FRC explode.
Birth rates would fall.
I’m just aghast at this one. Brith rates are falling due to advances in chemistry and the use of prophylactics. But don’t worry, there are still PLENTY of people being born. They’re just not lilly white like the bigots at the FRC. And that is probably what scares the crap out of them.
Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.
Here we are. The slippery slope argument. You know, the same one that the bigots have been trying to use against us for time immemorial? The one usually followed by bestiality?
No, granting us the right to marry would not lead to any more demand for polygamy than already exists currently. And not for anything, a passel of women is not exactly easy to keep up with. Or are they talking just polygamy and not polyandry? One can never tell.
In conclusion, as you can well see the ‘arguments’ put up by the FRC are nothing but red herrings. In essence it’s a complete load of horse shit.