Gay Marriage Is Immoral – Talking Points for Your Libertarian & Atheist Friends

By Jennifer Thieme / 16 October 2012 / 22 comments

Many of you have Libertarian or atheist friends and family who are pro-same sex “marriage.” They don’t care about God’s design for marriage being one man, one woman, for life. They don’t care that God is not pleased with homosexual behavior. They are starting to think that it’s OK for gay couples to marry. Libertarians in particular are prone to support same sex “marriage” due to the idea that it will increase freedom.

Try these talking points about the immorality of same sex marriage and the decrease in freedom that will result. Here’s how they start.

Same sex marriage will lead to a vast transfer of power from families to the government.

How?

Because it requires changing the legal code to remove the natural bonds of “mother” and “father” and replacing them with the artificial bonds of “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.” Our own Department of State tried to do this in 2011 with passport applications but conservative outcry was able to stop it. Canada replaced the term “natural parent” with “legal parent” after the legalization of same sex “marriage,” and France recently announced plans to remove “mother” and “father” from their legal code in order to accommodate same sex couples into the institution of marriage.

The Constitution talks about “unalienable rights” and the natural bond of a child with his own mother and father must certainly be among them.

It should be obvious to any reasonable person that replacing natural bonds with strictly legal (therefore artificial and subjective) bonds within the legal code will weaken the family structure. And we all know that weakened families lead to greater government intrusion and power. Just look at what happened with “no fault divorce.” Rather than being a way to limit government intrusion and increase freedom, it greatly increased the scope and power of the government. Anybody who has been in contested divorce or ugly custody dispute can attest to this. Moreover, people cannot participate effectively in the market if they’re overwhelmed with the legal disputes surrounding divorce, and they have fewer resources with which to do so.

We will see the same decay with the legalization of same sex “marriage,” because natural bonds within the legal code strengthen families, and artificial bonds will cause families to be weaker. Like with no fault divorce, because of the weakened family structure people will have less time and fewer resources to participate in the market.

What about adoption? It’s true that adoption assigns parental rights based on a legal bond, not a natural bond. Wouldn’t you agree that this is an accommodation in our legal code to help a child get the parents he needs? Adoption is a child centered institution, one that humanely makes an exception to the natural order, to accommodate the needs of children who do not have parents. Remember that adoption does not require our entire legal code to be altered the way same sex “marriage” does. Under this scenario, legal bonds are meant to be an exception to accommodate children in extraordinary circumstances. They are not meant to be the norm.

From this perspective, we can see two things clearly:

1. Same sex “marriage” implements the law of adoption for the entire society. Instead of the legal bonds of adoption being the exception in order to help children in need, legal bonds will be the norm for all families.

2. Same sex “marriage” is something quite different that natural marriage. No other changes to marriage have been nearly as sweeping to the legal code and to the family structure as same sex “marriage” will be.

Changing the entire society to legal bonds will have unforeseeable consequences and I believe it’s fair to say that most of them will be harmful, especially for the weakest members of society – the young and the poor. Put another way: if we disregard the legal recognition of natural bonds, is it reasonable to expect the result to be good?

Do you think most people know these changes that must be made? Does putting the entire society on the track of legal bonds make the government stronger or weaker? Do you think same sex “marriage” accurately represents true Libertarianism?

Try these talking points on your Libertarian and atheist friends and see what they say.

Image: Auguste Delacroix; courtesy of Philippe Alès; Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Check out Doug Giles' new book 'Sandy Hook Massacre'!

« Previous Post

Jennifer Thieme is the Director of Finance & Advancement for the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund. The Ruth Institute educates people as to why marriage must be defined as between one man, one woman, for life, for a truly free society to survive. Stay updated on the marriage issue by subscribing to the Ruth Institute newsletter, and instantly receive a free download, “Improve Your Marriage, Even If Your Spouse Doesn’t Change a Bit!” Signup here: ruthnewsletter.org

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

MATTHEW

WHOA! ROSIE O’DONNELL’S NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS COLUMN!
Joe P.

This is a stupid attempt to get people to be afraid of legal contracts. Who the hell would ever fear that? I say dump this stupid tactic and go back to whipping up fear the good old fashioned way. I mean, come ON!!! If your entire persuasive stance is to get folks to oppose something because they should fear some sort of outcome, you could probably do a lot better than this! This is like a very tortured path that leads to a lame “argument” that isn’t ever going to convince anyone of anything or matter in any way.
http://www.facebook.com/MagEakaWebutante Margaret Nahmias

Law and Morality are not the same. What’s legal is not necessarily moral
- Susan
  
  Just Law promotes virtue….Virtue is moral by definition. What is “Just Law” has to promote Virtue, since Justice IS a cardinal Virtue. Vice is evil and can not be promoted by “Just Law”. O. W. Holmes was a socialist who unconstitutionally removed morality from law in the US–prior to him all “Just Law” required in Rule of Law— was moral law. How can anyone claim Rule of Law (which means there is a Higher Law (God’s Law)) than positive law is separated from morality. All Laws were based on the Bible in Anglo-Saxon, European cultures—Common Law and Magna Carta came from Christianity and the Old Testament. Get a brain. All laws in the US were in line with the Bible and ten commandments.
Rachel

How can people think gay “marriage” is equal to traditional marriage? Biologically it is not the same… Man and wife physically fit together like two pieces of a puzzle. I will not ever call it the same because it simply is not!
Dodie1990

I am a 65 year old Goldwater libertarian Republican who thinks whom you marry is your, and only your business. I also favor peproductive freedom for women. Remember, birth control is far cheaper than a life time of welfare and free medical. I would rather pay for birth control and even abortion than the lifetime free ride. How many anti reproductive freedom folks are ready to step up and pay the expenses for the unlimited population growth they wish to impose on all of us?
- paulie1
  
  So, Dodie1990, what you are saying is that people today have become so immature, immoral, uncontrolled and anamalistic that we shouldn’t possibly expect a bunch of savages to control themselves and understand that sex causes pregnancy? So, you are also saying then, that many people don’t even understand that if they have sex when they have no spouse, no money and no means or desire to raise a child they will have to kill it — and this is a decision that they make every day and you are perfectly fine and willing to make excuses for and give an out to these stupid, selfish and immature people?
  And don’t even go to the “Well, what about rape, incest and the life of the mother??” That is less than 1% of all abortions – so that argument is rediculous at best.
- aRareSaneOne
  
  I’ll pay for all your friends who can’t afford $11 a month for their birth control, you cheapskate. Get real, pills are very cheap, and you can buy them with your food stamps with very little effort. The only reason for abortions today is amoral animalism, Progressive Liberal’s teaching/training, and stupidity.
- Phil1985
  
  Applying your logic – as a senior citizen, you are costing more to society than a younger person. If you are retired, then you are subsisting on a wealth transfer (social security) from younger, productive people, to the non-productive in the twilight of their years. (Don’t talk of the social security “trust fund”; what you paid in was spent decades ago) If you are so worried about surplus population, you have no further to look than at the mirror for a solution. Euthanasia is far cheaper than decades of welfare (SS) and free medical (medicaid). While I’m being sarcastic here, there are plenty of people out there who want to use the Logan’s Run solution. When human life is devalued, this is the kind of thinking that results.
adamenochnoah

I agree, both gay marriage & abortion is immoral. That said, the only 4 candidates who have a mathematical possibility of winning the presidency (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green) support gay marriage & abortion either proactively or by default. Need proof? Look no farther than how many GOP Presidents & Congresses we have voted to into office, & not one of them has done anything to stop the barbaric practice of abortion which is far more heinous than gay marriage. If you want to vote for a candidate that is actually on the ballot, & you want someone against these issues, you have no choice in for president in this election cycle.

Now if you are concerned about the out of control govt that is Taxing, Spending, & Controlling us into oblivion, then we have the best choice we have had in many generations. He is the most fiscally conservative candidate in America. He is the Libertarian Nominee for POTUS, Gov Gary Johnson.
9thID

When you come right down to it, Liber-als, Liber-tarians, and atheists are moral relativist and hedonistic humanists. God will sort them out on the other side…
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1575410085 Alicia Clark
  
  I have an Atheist friend who understands gay “marriage” is wrong. He has told me “humans have the ability to reason, and any reasonable person has to see… it ain’t right”.
  - http://www.facebook.com/quentin.mckenzie.5 Quentin Mckenzie
    
    Well that’s a good argument, right?
    
    See you in hell, then 9thID
jcsmitty

What’s not mentioned in the article is what’s already happening in Canada: prosecution of “hate crimes” where opponents openly disagree, and brainwashing our kids in schools so as to avoind “discrimination.” The only ones you can “shut up” or persecute these days are Christians.
adamenochnoah

When you come right down to it most politicians are amoral, & based on where we are today, no one has been able to figure out a solution to the problem.
Light_V_Dark

Atheists and A-Gnostics like EVIL, more than GOOD.

Lewd_Licentious_Lily_Livered_Libertarians are Liberals who like guns. BUT, they will only use them against us. These two swarms don’t condemn EVIL, BECAUSE THEY CAN’T IDENTIFY IT.

Libs are Mommy-Staters. Neolibs are Anarchists. One would think they’d be bitter enemas. But, they OCCUPY TOGETHER.

Communist genocide and Muslim terrorism are just SWELL, WITH ALL OF THEM.

PERCEIVED UNFAIRNESS AND SELF DEFENSE¿? THEY GO INTO KAMIKAZI MODE.
Light_V_Dark

The more EVIL something is, the more it is ADORED, by the Wicked.
Homosexuals are lots of things, but GAY, ISN’T ONE OF THEM¡!

Now that Gaydolf is out of the closet, do Leftists and Dr. Run Disciples, forgive him¿?
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3885
Communists use homosexuality as a tool. When they seize power they ban the perversion because they are perfectly aware of how destructive it is. Homosexuality destroys a civilization for the simple reason that the basis of civilization is the family, and homosexuality destroys the family.
Light_V_Dark

One of you twerps commented on the author, USING SCARE TACTICS.

Make believe that Gaes have the BIGGEST CARBON FOOTPRINTS IN THE WORLD»»»They are unusually SAVAGE, when they commit murder, because of sociopathy, LACK OF IMPULSE CONTROL and ENVY.

Ghehs represent 3% of our population. Of America’s top 10 serial murderers, 6 were gei. And, gae men commit 30% of all child sexual abuse in the country, because most gees were MOLESTED AS CHILDREN, THEMSELVES.
Light_V_Dark

Communists and Muslims murder people for Bible* ownership. Nobody hates Bibles more than Gaetheists.

In fact, Gaetheists seem to TOLERATE Muslims, who murder them in the most inventive ways, and DESPISE CHRISTIANS.

BTW, Dear MISGUIDED CHRISTIANS—Tell an evil person that she is doing wrong, and you will lose your head. Al Anon suggests you DETACH WITH LOVE. AND PRAY FOR THE WICKED, BUT, DON’T LET THEM CONTINUE ABUSING AND STEALING FROM YOU. THEY WILL MURDER YOU, FOR THE FUN OF IT.

1 Peter 4;*

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.
Donnie Weaver

As a libertarian, and a christian, I find this interesting and ignorant. I don’t support gay marriage, I support not letting the government define what marriage is at all. Marriage is a purely religious institution. Let the church define it. Why do we depend on the government at all to tell us what words mean? If we took the power from the government to be able to define it, then it would be an individual issue. Increasing freedom, and increasing your right to define your relationship with your children the way it was meant to be defined.
- http://www.facebook.com/jennifer.thieme Jennifer Thieme
  
  I think that “get the government out of marriage” is a conversation worth having, I just don’t agree that this is the time. If the left gets a hold of the definition of marriage by making it genderless, I can guarantee that marriage will NEVER go back to the churches. I can also guarantee that reforming divorce laws will never happen, and it’s something that needs to happen badly, but the only reason gays want marriage is due to easy divorce. I am also pretty sure that abortion laws won’t ever be reformed in a meaningful way if ssm gets widely accepted.
  
  Did you see this? Angela McCaskill was suspended from her job ***because she signed a petition*** so marriage could get voted on in MD.
  
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/16/gallaudet-official-suspended-gay-marriage-petition/
  
  Or what about homosexuality getting taught in schools down to grade K? These are the sorts of things coming down the pike due to ssm.
  
  We cannot lose this “hill” in this battle; if we do, we will be forced to retreat much farther back than most people realize. There’s a lot at stake, far more than just the immediate question at hand.
Jess

The government used to not define marriage at all.now it does for tax purposes.
Why not get government out of marriage and leave it to private legal contracts?
I shouldn’t have to ask the government “mother may i?” when getting married. That’s between me and God.

The Sandy Hook Massacre

The Sandy Hook Massacre: When Seconds Count, the Police are Minutes Away:

"Doug Giles and his team over at ClashDaily.com cut through the crap to expose what have become modern day human slaughter houses: gun free zones. Their candid arguments about allowing teachers to protect themselves and the students in their care through concealed carry should be taken seriously. As a result maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to save some lives someday rather than call the cops to report the body count." - Katie Pavlich. News Editor,Townhall.com and NYT's Best-selling Author, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-Up

"There were many lessons to draw from the horrific Newtown, CT school shooting. Unfortunately, most of the media and political Left came up with the wrong ones. But not Doug Giles and his writers over at ClashDaily.com. In the wake of this horror, they offered a robust defense of American citizens' right to bear arms and common sense answers to societal violence. The Sandy Hook Massacre: When Seconds Count, the Police are Minutes Away is a great resource for those interested in this vital, Constitutional issue." - S.E. Cupp, MSNBC Host and The Blaze Contributor