Bubba Sounds Off

Response to Dr. James Dobson article

May 23, 2004
Eleven Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage
by Dr. James Dobson

An argument in favor of homosexual marriage that you are likely to hear again and again on radio talk shows, on national television, and on the Internet, reflects a line of reasoning that you must be prepared to counter. It is embodied in these kinds of questions: Why all the fuss about gay marriage anyway? And why should it matter to you if a gay couple marries and moves into your neighborhood? Why shouldn’t our definition of family be broadened and modernized? After all, what harm could possibly be done by yielding to the demands of those who say traditional notions of family are outmoded and irrelevant?

Columnist Steve Blow, in a recent edition of The Dallas Morning News, echoed some of these questions. His op-ed piece was titled “Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me?” and was apparently written after he had read one of my recent newsletters on the subject. Blow wrote:

When opponents talk about the “defense of marriage,” they lose me. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family just sent out a mailer to 2.5 million homes saying: “The homosexual activists’ movement is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family.” And I say, “Huh?” How does anyone’s pledge of love and commitment turn into a fatal blow to families?

Mr. Blow clearly believes that the only reason for not legalizing homosexual marriage is sheer bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are very compelling arguments against marriage between homosexuals that should be considered by anyone who has not yet become familiar with the issues. Unfortunately, the American people, as a whole, have not yet thought through the consequences and measured the impact of this revolutionary concept. I could list fifty or more legitimate concerns. Let me focus on only eleven:

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

We’ve already seen evidence from the Scandinavian countries that de-facto homosexual marriage destroys the real Mc Coy.

Dr. Dobson, it looks like you’ve got some rather shaky standards for what constitutes “evidence”. If you’re using the expression “the real McCoy” to refer to traditional, heterosexual marriages, have all such marriages been eliminated in those countries? In fact, can you identify even one marriage that’s been destroyed by the presence of a “de-facto homosexual marriage”? And for those who prefer the option of traditional marriage, is it any less available to them than it used to be? If not, then I guess your use of the word “destroys” is a bit over the top, huh? Hyperbole is certainly a hallmark of opponents of same sex marriage. It will be interesting to see how heavily your own commentary will rely on it. In fact, we have another example coming right up …

These two entities cannot coexist because they represent opposite ends of the universe.

Nonsense. There are plenty of traditionally married couples who would have absolutely no problem peacefully coexisting with same sex married couples. If you would have trouble doing so, then that reflects poorly on you, and on your marriage.

A book could be written on the reasons for this collision between matter and antimatter, but I will cite three of them.

First, when the State sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage.

More nonsense. Most young people are probably not nearly as preoccupied with this stuff as you seem to be. But those who bother to give it much thought at all (and who are not suffering from heavy religious indoctrination) probably won’t have to strain too many brain cells to figure out that it’s simply a government refraining from sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, and leaving people alone to make their own choices. If anything, the hysteria reflected in your opening comments suggests you are at least as prone to muddled conclusions on this issue as most young people are likely to be.

Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience, but cannot offer the intimacy described in Genesis.

Who cares? As long as whatever it offers is acceptable to the participants, it’s none of your business. Come to think of it, even if it isn’t, it’s still none of your business.

Cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result. Ask the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the people from the Netherlands. That is exactly what is happening there.

I hate to break it to you, but cohabitation and short term relationships are happening now, in this country. Good luck credibly establishing that they will occur with any greater frequency as a result of allowing same sex couples to enter that lifetime commitment known as marriage.

Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions.

I don’t see the dots connected on this claim either. But as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, it’s not much of a concern anyway, and it’s still none of your business.

In Utah polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. In January 2004, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society” — as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played?

Yes. It sounds a lot like “innocent until proven guilty”. Is this a concept you object to?

The responsibility to defend the family now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy.

Defend the family from what? Are you expecting it to be attacked by the same sex couple living down the street?

And not only is it not my responsibility to “prove that polygamy is unhealthy”, I don’t particularly care that it gets proven at all. If you have a problem with something your neighbor wants to do, and you don’t think you should bear any responsibility for making your case in order to prohibit him from doing it, you just come across as a tyrant.

Besides, when the issue of whether something is “unhealthy” is as subjective as it is in this case, it’s a terrible basis for making laws in a free society. In fact, things like religious authoritarianism and irrational prejudices are far more unhealthy to a free society than anything most gays and lesbians want to do.

The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case. It took less than six months for His prediction to become a reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed.

Sure there is - consenting adults. That might not alleviate all of your concerns about polygamy, but with the exception of those who have been confined to a small, rigidly protected, heavily indoctrinated religious community, women who would opt for polygamy as a way of life are virtually nonexistent. In fact, given the option of polygamy, the number of people who would choose it as a way of life would probably never be more than a tiny fraction of the number of people in traditional marriages that end in divorce. This whole line of argument is particularly absurd for trying to justify objections to same sex marriage.

Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

That observation will no doubt resonate with shallow minds. But what you’ve just cited are terrible reasons for placing legal restrictions on consensual adult relationships.

In the first place, whenever you’re talking about what’s been done “historically”, you’re talking about generations that were overwhelmingly prone to blind conformity, and frowned on dissent. Crediting them with reliable judgment is a particularly silly thing to do. Remember, taboos against interracial marriage were long supported by both tradition and “the overwhelming support of the people”.

Moreover, legal precedent that supports unwarranted discrimination is bad precedent, and should be challenged, not blindly followed.

And theology, in particular, should keep its nose out of laws in a free society.

(Will we be getting to the “very compelling arguments” any time soon?)

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.

Do you have some good reason to believe everyone else will abandon support for traditional marriage? Come to think of it, will you? Some of your predictions simply don’t make sense.

After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.”

Just more nonsensical rhetoric. In the world of reality, most families will go on just as they are. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb here, and suggest that even most of the families who oppose gay marriage would survive its presence in society just fine.

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right?

Why should any reasonable person want to? There’s no cause for concern with regard to the stability of the “legal climate”. Make one change - draw the line at “consenting adults”, and never change it again.

The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots.

Considering the malice gays and lesbians have endured throughout history, the expression “a taste of your own medicine” comes to mind. In any case, this concern doesn’t make much sense either. Who would be saying these things that isn’t already saying them now?

(Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against Christians who espouse biblical values!)

If you take a closer look, I think you’ll find they’re not usually leveled at people for merely espousing biblical values, but rather for trying to use the force of law to impose biblical values on others. Those who don’t feel the need to bully others into compliance with the tenets of their religion have little to be concerned about. It helps to be precise.

How about group marriage, or marriage between cousins, or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable.

Okay, one at a time:

Group marriage - fine as long as all involved are consenting adults.

Marriage between cousins - fine as long as both are consenting adults.

Marriage between daddies and little girls - not so much. Again, consenting adults.

And if you can find a donkey who is capable of communicating consent, go for it.

What else ya got?

The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

There’s that hyperbole coming into play again. The legal underpinnings for marriage will merely have been modified to remove unwarranted discrimination.

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.

It’s worth noting at this point that you have yet to identify even one reason that deserves to be taken seriously, so if this turns out to be one, it would be the first. Having said that, can you identify even one person who has ever argued for destroying traditional marriage, especially with the zeal you just described? Because if you can’t, it certainly comes across as a desperate attempt to demonize those who disagree with you, by attributing motives to them for which there is no foundation. And doesn’t the Bible say something about bearing false witness?

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.

Like what? As nearly as I can tell, most gays and lesbians simply want to be able to make their own marital choices, without being bound to the preferences of the majority. Beyond that, if you’re aware of some “shocking and outrageous” goal that’s shared by most of them, you should consider writing a separate article about it. But such vague speculation hardly qualifies as a valid objection to the perfectly reasonable goal of same sex marriage.

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.

Whose intention? And how do you know what most gays and lesbians want? Are you ever going to get specific with any of this stuff?

Besides, “create an entirely different legal structure” is also pretty nonspecific. If you’re simply talking about allowing consenting adults to marry as they choose, then you still don’t have much of a point. Vagueness seems to be a hallmark of yours as well.

With marriage as we know it gone,

Sorry, I just couldn’t let this particularly blatant example of hyperbole pass without notice. Now, as you were saying …

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.

Basically, you just seem to be trying to put a negative spin on removing unwarranted discrimination in the distribution of government benefits. Are you under the impression gays and lesbians don’t pay taxes? And how did you arrive at the conclusion “without limiting the number of partners or their gender”? You really do seem to be awfully preoccupied with polygamy in a discussion about same sex marriage.

Nor would “couples” be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.

From a desire to be legally married, you somehow infer an agenda of not being legally bound to each other? Remember what I said earlier about your ability to form sound conclusions?

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.

That’s it? The “polyamorous” thing is what you’re hanging your hat on to make this point? How exactly does the creation of a new word that describes something other than marriage establish anything questionable about the motives of people who want to have the option of marriage?

Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley wrote a July 2003 op-ed piece in The Washington Post titled, “Abolish Marriage: Let’s Really Get the Government Out Of Our Bedrooms.” In this revealing editorial, Kinsley writes, “[The] solution is to end the institution of marriage, or rather, the solution is to end the institution of government monopoly on marriage. And yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let ’em. If you and your government aren’t implicated, what do you care? If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriages would become irrelevant.” Otherwise, the author warns, “it’s going to get ugly.”

It’s not clear what point you’re trying to make here, but what Kinsley appears to be advocating certainly makes more sense than government remaining involved in doling out marital benefits in a way that caters to irrational prejudices.

Judith Levine, writing in The Village Voice, offered support for these ideas in an article titled “Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough.” She wrote, “Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.”

Fine by me. You’re in a society where the overwhelming majority of people oppose polygamy, so how could participation in it occur in large enough numbers to ever warrant any serious concern among those who object to it? Do you expect people who currently oppose it to become enamored with it if it becomes legal? In my entire life, I don’t think I’ve ever met even one person who would choose polygamy if given the option.

Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, summed up the situation in a recent Weekly Standard article. He noted that if gay marriage is legalized, “marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female … the bottom of this slope is visible from where we now stand.”

And again, as long as that overwhelming majority of people who favor traditional marriage still have the option of traditional marriage, what’s the objection?

We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one. And despite what you read or see in the media, it is definitely not monogamous.

Such comments appear to be another example of what I was saying earlier about bearing false witness in order to demonize those who disagree with you - and in this case, using hyperbole to do so. But then again, if you actually believe that the expansion of marital options equates to “marriage for no one”, then it’s simply another one of those things that reflects poorly on your ability to form reasonable conclusions.

What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing?

Your question doesn’t make much sense, but on the chance that all you’re talking about is allowing same sex marriage, what will happen is that a greater number of people will be able to enjoy the relationships of their choice. Sociologically, it’s pretty hard to see that as a serious problem.

The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit.

It’s pretty laughable to think that would be the case for divorces involving any conflict about such things as property or custody. And where there is no such conflict, once again, it’s hard to see minimizing state involvement as a problem.

With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

And where was it again that you connected the dots between same sex marriage and “with the family out of the way”? In fact, how did you reach the conclusion “without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it”? Could you be bearing false witness again?

These are just a few reasons why homosexual marriage is truly revolutionary.

Sorry, I didn’t realize “revolutionary” was what you were going for. You started out as if you were going to attempt to make the case that it would “destroy” traditional marriage. But so far, you haven’t presented a single rational comment to explain how people who want to participate in traditional marriages would ever be prevented from doing so - by anyone. You simply strung together a presentation of unfounded, often hysterical predictions, and almost seemed to be flaunting your inability to make a credible case.

Legalizing it will change everything, especially for the institution of the family.

Nope. Once again, the overwhelming majority of families (and probably all of them) will survive the presence of same sex marriage just fine. Since you’ve failed to put forth a single credible argument to the contrary, that’s strike one. But with ten more to go, let’s see if you can do better.

2. Children will suffer most.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound.

Sounds a lot like a problem created by heterosexuals to me.

Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going.

First, if homosexuals are “rarely monogamous”, are you under the impression that having the option of marriage would somehow make them less monogamous?

Second, what have you been smokin’? Citing such ridiculous numbers only further erodes your credibility. Outrageous claims call for compelling evidence, and noticeably absent from your commentary is the identification of even one of these studies, who is behind it, or anything about the methods used to collect and analyze data - not exactly the most responsible approach to making your case.

And third, you do understand how children are conceived, right? Your comment certainly casts doubt on that, so pay close attention to the following. Any children being produced from “polyamorous” situations are coming from heterosexual activity. Once again, your affinity for bungled conclusions rears its ugly head. But if nothing else, thanks for the laugh. Trying to pin this one on gays and lesbians only demonstrates how desperate you are for an argument.

It is devastating to kids, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to stay just the way they are, and they hate change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood.

More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers.

They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

What does objectively analyzed data have to say about children raised by committed gay or lesbian couples in same sex marriage homes, in a completely tolerant and accepting society?

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning about the impact of fractured families. If present trends continue, the majority of children will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements; where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street, as millions do in countries all over the world today. Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation. And have you considered what will happen when homosexuals with children become divorced?

Sounds like you should be out there arguing for laws against divorce, not blaming homosexuals for problems that seem to be due mostly to irresponsible heterosexual activity. I’m starting to get the impression that if I keep reading, I’ll find you jumping through hoops to blame gays and lesbians for Hurricane Katrina.

Moreover, if your concern is “what will happen when homosexuals with children become divorced”, this is most likely to occur when gays or lesbians feel pressured by society to enter a traditional marriage situation, only to find out after having children that it doesn’t work for them. It’s pretty hard to see how a society that is accepting of same sex marriages would make this unfortunate situation more likely to occur.

Instead of two moms and two dads, they will have to contend with four moms or four dads. How would you like to be a new husband a generation later who instantly had four or six or eight mother-in-laws.

All that noise about a surplus of adults in a child’s life just to get to a bad punchline?

We must also consider a world of the future where immorality is even more rampant than today, where both unbridled homosexual and heterosexual liaisons are the norm.

It’s funny that you don’t even seem to realize how many of your comments belong in a case against promiscuity, and have nothing to do with sexual orientation. In fact …

The apostle Paul described such a society in the book of Romans, referring apparently to ancient Rome. He wrote, “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (Romans 1:29–31).

How carefully did you even read what you just quoted? I’ve just read it over several times, very carefully, and I found no mention whatsoever of homosexuality, or same sex marriages. But even if I had, you’re quoting from a book that contains accountings of talking animals, and of people walking on water, rising from the dead, turning to salt, etc. If you think that’s a reasonable source from which to formulate rules that everyone has to live by - well, remember what I keep saying about your ability to form sound conclusions?

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will rip kids apart emotionally.

And we’re still somehow blaming all this on gays and lesbians, right? Sorry, but it’s strike 2.

3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach this perversion as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

I hate to break it to you, but for all the words you’ve spent on this issue, you have yet to establish that homosexuality is any more of a “perversion” than being left handed, or that it is in any way morally inferior to traditional marriage. And given the subject matter, it reflects poorly on your judgment that you didn’t consider that to be an important step in making your case.

Textbooks, even in conservative regions, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexuals.

Admittedly, it’s easy to see how this might be upsetting to parents who want their children indoctrinated with the same prejudices they themselves are afflicted with.

How can a child, fresh out of toddlerhood, comprehend the meaning of adult sexuality?
The answer is, they can’t, but it is happening in the state of California already.

Just exactly what level of “adult sexuality” are you talking about? If you had much of a point here, it would certainly help to be more precise.

Your #3 argument was “public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality”. This, too, seems highly unlikely. Besides, your supporting comments suggest that all you mean is that, to the degree that schools discuss marriage at all, they will not cast same sex marriage in an unfavorable light. Since you have yet to credibly establish anything wrong with same sex marriage, this fails miserably as a reason to oppose it. Strike 3! And yet you continue …

4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete.

From the moment that homosexual marriage becomes legal, courts will not be able to favor a traditional couple of one man and one woman in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. Even the polyamorous couples won’t be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

No, the law will be that homosexual marriage is legal. But thank you for once again again demonstrating your affinity for over-the-top predictions.

5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.

Foster-care parents will be required to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of bias in favor of heterosexuality, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens. Moral training, at least as it applies to sexuality, will be forbidden. Again, this is the current law in California.

I’m not a big fan of “sensitivity training” myself. And in particular, I’d oppose laws requiring it. But even if it occurs, it falls well short of “impacted dramatically”. And it’s really not much of a problem at all if the result is that making a kid feel bad about his or her sexual orientation will be widely recognized as bad parenting.

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

This could be the straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry in Western nations, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage. Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee. It is estimated by some analysts that an initial threefold increase in premiums can be anticipated; even with that, it may not be profitable for companies to stay in business.

And how about the cost to American businesses? Will they be able to provide health benefits? If not, can physicians, nurses, and technicians be expected to work for nothing or to provide their services in exchange for a vague promise of payments from indigent patients?

Try selling that to a neurosurgeon or an orthopedist who has to pay increased premiums for malpractice insurance. The entire health care system could implode.

Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen? I don’t know.

Notably absent is any foundation for your catastrophic speculations, but I’ll give you points for at least admitting you have doubts about them yourself. And while such speculation might very well be relevant in a discussion of health care policies, the belief that it justifies restricting marital choices among consenting adults just reflects a sledgehammer approach to problem solving.

7. Social Security will be severely stressed.

Again, with millions of new eligible dependents, what will happen to the Social Security system that is already facing bankruptcy? If it does collapse, what will that mean for elderly people who must rely totally on that meager support? Who is thinking through these draconian possibilities as we careen toward “a brave new world”?

If it’s already facing bankruptcy, it should probably be overhauled anyway. It was flawed from the start. That major policy blunder is no excuse for restricting marital choices among taxpaying adults.

8. Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.

In order to get a perspective on where the homosexual activist movement is taking us, one can simply look at our neighbors to the north. Canada is leading the way on this revolutionary path. I could cite dozens of examples indicating that religious freedom in that country is dying. Indeed, on April 28, 2004, the Parliament passed bill C 250, which effectively criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexuality. Anything deemed to be “homophobic” can be punished by six months in prison or by other severe penalties.

The honorable response to tyranny is to consistently oppose it, not use someone else’s as a rationalization for your own.

Pastors and priests in Canada are wondering if they can preach from Leviticus or Romans 1 or other passages from the writings of the apostle Paul. Will a new Bible be mandated that is bereft of “hate speech”? Consider this: A man who owned a printing press in Canada was fined $3,400 for refusing to print stationary for a homosexual activist organization.

The honorable response to tyranny is to consistently oppose it, not use someone else’s as a rationalization for your own.

Censorship is already in full swing. One of our Focus on the Family radio programs on the subject of homosexuality was judged by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission to be “homophobic.” The radio station that carried the broadcast was censured for airing it, and I have not been able to address the issue since.

Is that kind of censorship coming to the United States. Yes, I believe it is.

Regarding that last example, it’s worth noting that merely referring to something as “homophobic” does not by itself equate to censorship. Criticism of what someone else has said is an exercise of free speech, not a violation of it. And it isn’t clear what you meant by “censured”, so it’s a little hard to address. But once again, the honorable response to tyranny is to consistently oppose it, not use someone else’s as a rationalization for your own.

Once homosexual marriage is legalized, if indeed that is where we are headed, laws based on what will be considered “equality” will bring many changes in the law. Furthermore, it is likely that non-profit organizations that refuse to hire homosexuals on religious grounds will lose their tax exemptions. Some Christian colleges and universities are already worrying about that possibility.

Not that these predictions are any more credible than some of your other ones, but is there some good reason that organizations engaging in unwarranted discrimination should not lose tax exempt status?

9. Other nations are watching our march toward homosexual marriage and will follow our lead.

Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind. Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me recently that his country is carefully monitoring what is happening in the United States. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution. What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

It’s clear same sex marriage isn’t the only issue about which you’ve got some authoritarian notions. Not much else to respond to here, except to note the additional examples of hyperbole, and the glaring absence of any clear arguments against same sex marriage. You’re 0 for 9, with only 2 left. Not lookin’ so good.

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

Actually, it isn’t religion (or the gospel of Jesus Christ) that will be curtailed, it’s the ability to use government to force others into compliance with religious tenets. But then, it’s harder to generate hysteria when you confine yourself to precise language, isn’t it?

The family has been God’s primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning. Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, “Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.” That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany, and other European countries.

Here you just seem to be lamenting failure to indoctrinate young people with religion. It’s kind of hard to see how that would trouble anyone who isn’t similarly indoctrinated themselves.

And once again, where did you establish any logical connection between same sex marriages and “the loss of committed, God-fearing families”? Come to think of it, what’s so special about “God-fearing” families in the first place?

Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids.

Sorry, but those logic circuits are misfiring again. Remember, children come from heterosexual activity. You really should write that down, and keep it near you the next time you attempt any commentary on this subject.

Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

And of course, when all else fails, start making poorly founded assertions about what God wants, and that settles the debate, right?

I mentioned hysterical predictions earlier, and your heavy reliance on them prompts me to ask - are you trying to emulate Fred Phelps? Judging by my first glance at your next attempt at an argument, it would seem so.

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

This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance. This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless — unless — God’s people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That’s why we are urgently seeking the Lord’s favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land. As of this time, however, large segments of the church still appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue).

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord’s expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

What you refer to as “reticence” is, for at least some Christians, a much more reasonable view of the world than the one reflected by your hysterical rantings. For many of them, it is also a recognition of the inappropriateness of using the force of law to impose their own conclusions about God’s will onto their fellow human beings. You could learn a thing or two from them, and a little dose of humility just might help.

And your little sermonette above still contains no noticeable arguments against allowing same sex marriages. In fact, you began your article by attributing a number of questions to those you disagree with:

Why all the fuss about gay marriage anyway? And why should it matter to you if a gay couple marries and moves into your neighborhood? Why shouldn’t our definition of family be broadened and modernized? After all, what harm could possibly be done by yielding to the demands of those who say traditional notions of family are outmoded and irrelevant?

And of course, there is also the one you attributed to columnist Steve Blow:

How does anyone’s pledge of love and commitment turn into a fatal blow to families?

But alas, there is not a clear, credible answer to any of these questions to be found anywhere in your commentary.

You also said:

I could list fifty or more legitimate concerns. Let me focus on only eleven.

Out of curiosity, were these supposed to be the best eleven?

Frankly, I expected someone of your notoriety to come up with something. How refreshing it would be if, just once, someone claiming to speak for God reflected the wisdom one should be able to expect from someone who actually is speaking for God. Something tells me a lot of people are going to have some serious accounting to do on judgment day for the things they’re fostering in His name.

This entry was posted on Sunday, June 24th, 2007 at 3:16 pm and is filed under Gay Marriage, Dr. James Dobson. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.