#1. Legalised same sex marriage will become a defacto law against exercising ones conscience or taking a position based on moral choices.
If SSM is legalised, all objections for whatever reason, will be outlawed, meaning that homosexuals and lesbians will be able to ride roughshod over a person’s conscience or moral objection. This will be a thin end of the wedge towards a totalitarian state.
#2. SSM marriage is not marriage as we understand marriage, two people in a committed relationship to the exclusion of all others.
Homosexuals have made it quite clear that they do not see monogamy as relevant to their relationships as it is accepted that fidelity in the relationship is unknown with both partners having regular sex with other persons outside of the marriage.
The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans' sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in "committed" relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in "steady partnerships" had an average of eight "casual" sex partners per year.
#3. Homosexuals claim that it is discrimination to not allow legalised SSM.
This is a furphy of the first order as every law discriminates against someone. The law against murder discriminates against a person who wants to commit murder. The marriage Act discriminates against a man who wants to marry a boy. To claim discrimination is tantamount to demanding that all laws should be abolished if they stop anyone doing what they want.
#4. If SSM is legalised, other forms of relationships will have to be legalised.
If this is legalised, polyamory and polygamy will be put on the agenda very quickly and it will be very difficult to refuse such a claim. In the USA, already moves are being made to legalise relationships between paedophile homosexuals and boys.
#5. Legalised SSM will be used to attack Christianity.
In the UK, an Anglican Vicar has been taken to court because he refused to marry two men in his church. The Catholic Adoption Agencies in the USA were forced to accept same sex couples as adoptive parents. Rather than compromise their morals, they closed down the agencies.
#6. By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home:
Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so....Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society." (Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12.)
#7. Delegates from more than 60 nations affirmed Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that asserts "the family is a natural and fundamental group unit of society, and is entitled to protection by the state". Legalising SSM means ignoring this Declaration.
Significantly, it defined "natural family" as "the lifelong marriage of a man to a woman, for the purposes of welcoming and nurturing new human life, providing love, companionship, and mutual support, building a home rich in functions, and strengthening the bonds of the generations."
#8. The battle for SSM is equated with the prohibition against interracial marriage.
This is a furphy that is pure spin. A person is born black or white because of his parent’s nationality. No one is born homosexual because his parents were homosexual. Apart from the fact a black man and a white women marrying does not change the fundamental definition of marriage so this equation should be totally ignored.
#9. Leading homosexual marriage advocate Evan Wolfson admits to just what will happen: “This won’t just be a change in the law either; it will be a change in society. For if we do it right, the struggle to win the freedom to marry will bring much more along the way.”
One does not have to be too clever to realise that SSM is the front to a hidden agenda to changing society for the worst, to be recast in the homosexual image. Moral degeneration will take a turn for the worse, especially for children.
#10. Once SSM marriage is legalised, schools will be forced to promote homosexuality.
Some examples in the USA are… a school wide assembly to celebrate SSM; literatures on how SSM was normal was given to students; teachers giving lessons about sex saying that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys; a parent was arrested and jailed because he insisted that the school his son attended advise him about teaching on homosexuality; parents forced a school to allow their children to opt-out form sex education about homosexuality. The courts overruled them and said SSM was legal so they could not opt-out; because SSM was legal, a federal judge said it was a schools duty to teach that homosexual relationships were normal.
#11. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.
It is a foolish parliament and a foolish politician that ignores the evidence of history in favour of a very small minority of a small minority.
#12. Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any "relationship" between two or more partners of either sex.
Do you really want to open the door to any kind of relationship as being legal? If not, SSM is not an option.
#13. Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens.
The Howard government changes 74 laws that gave homosexuals the same rights as any other citizen. This means that SSM is not a civil rights issue.
#14. Upholding traditional marriage is not "discrimination"
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally regarding the point in question. As homosexuals have made it quite clear they have no intention of adhering to the basic tenets of marriage fidelity, they are asking for something they don’t qualify for.
#15. Homosexual marriage would subject children to unstable home environments
Many homosexuals and their sex partners may sincerely believe they can be good parents. But children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments in redefining marriage, and should not be placed in settings that are unsuitable for raising children.
Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression”. A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.
Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors.
#16. Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage
Homosexual activists admit that their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more "inclusive," but to remake it in their own hedonistic image. Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile rejects monogamy in favor of "a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often ... and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners."
#17. Polls do not show that most Australians want SSM to be legalised.
MPs who reported back to Parliament their constituent’s views on the matter said no to it in general and some cases up to 90% said no. The most quoted Galaxy poll that said 62% of Australians supported SSM was flawed as the question was set by a homosexual organisation to give a specific outcome.
#18. Moral degeneration is on the rise.
When you make the abnormal normal and the normal abnormal you are going to reap what you sow. Yes we are a prosperous nation financially. Yes we are a nation that has many natural gifts. Yes we are a nation that has built a strong society in a short space of time in comparison to many others.
However, if we insist in recognising all manner of deviancy and call it normal we are going to preside over the moral destruction of our nation and with all the money and will in the world we will not be able to stop it.
#19.The record of history
For 6,000 years the norm has been man and woman for marriage. Nations that deviate from this pay the price. The Roman Empire one of histories greatest is a classic example. Was its power and might brought down by outside aggressors? NO. Was its might and power destroyed by a civil war? NO.
The downfall of the Roman Empire was the work of its own immorality. Two things primarily caused its downfall. Abortion and homosexuality. Allowing free reign for both in Roman society brought about a moral disintegration in their society and what was once a mighty empire was no more. It has never recovered.
#20. Homosexuals are not interested in the truth
The most common accusation made by homosexuals is that if you disagree with them, you are homophobic. The truth is a homophobic person has an unnatural fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. It has nothing at all to do with agreeing or disagreeing with them.
Despite this fact, the gaystapo throws insult and innuendo at those who are not in love with their agenda. Rational debate is not high on their agenda. Until it is, we cannot make law based on lies.
#21. Homosexuals want to silence any dissent to their demands
All around the world homosexual activists are working overtime to silence any opposition, and make sure that dissenters are rounded up and rendered voiceless and powerless. If not jail time or fines, they will do their utmost to get people fired from their jobs if they dare to differ on homosexuality.
Of course they disingenuously seek to tell us that they just want to be free to do their thing in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Don’t believe it for a minute. They are on a holy crusade to rid the world of anyone who dares to suggest that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, unhealthy or dangerous.
If you give in to their demand for SSM, they will take that as acceptance for their way of life and push for even more outrageous demands.
#22. SSM will be a disaster for children
Once SSM marriage is legalised, they will demand and get the right to adopt children. From writings on the subject, this demand is on the basis that it will make the homosexuals happy. The needs of children are irrelevant. Because of the short span of most homosexual relationships, it will mean children will be subject to a procession of carers most of whom do not give a damn about the child.
#23. But isn't marriage just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together?
If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny "marriage" to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.
#24. Don't homosexuals need marriage rights so that they will be able to visit their partners in the hospital?
Except when a doctor limits visitation for medical reasons, final authority over who may visit an adult patient rests with that patient. This is and should be the case regardless of the sexual orientation or marital status of the patient or the visitor. Another furphy used by the gaystapo to further their demands.
#25. The law is there to uphold the common good, not pander to a small minority.
Legalising SSM means that the government will be forced to ignore that children have a basic right to be raised by their mother and father together. Also, as demonstrated in other places where marriage redefinition has occurred, officials there will be in a position to retaliate against those who continue to uphold these basic truths. This is a mark of a profoundly unjust law.”
#26. In the USA, many politicians who voted for SSM lost their seats at the next election.
ou are taking a political risk to satisfy the demands of a minority and ignoring the majority.
#27. The lesson of proposition 8 in California.
The editor of a new book, Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, summarizes the general issue this way: “All six contributors (to the book)—religious and secular, left, center and right—agree that same sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty.” The demand for same sex marriage brings in its wake a demand for identical treatment of same sex couples and opposite sex couples. Churches that resist this demand can have their tax exempt status challenged, can be investigated by “human rights commissions,” and can have parts of their operation shut down completely.
#28. SSM will make no difference to the wellbeing of homosexuals
If homosexual conduct really is, as its natural law critics contend, a perversion of human desires and capacities, a wrenching of them away from their natural purposes, then such conduct will be a source of frustration and unhappiness regardless of whether society bestows its “recognition,” and hence its approval, on it. On this view, there is nothing of substance to be gained from same-sex marriage even for homosexuals. Indeed, if traditional natural law theorists are correct in their assessment of homosexual conduct, then same-sex marriage would be not only pointless but positively damaging, to the extent that it could mislead people to their own harm by bestowing a spurious respectability on an objectively disordered way of life.
#29. Children suffer with same sex parents
First, same sex couples tend to be promiscuous. One of the largest studies of same sex couples revealed that only seven of 156 couples had a sexual relationship which was totally monogamous. Most of these relationships lasted less than five years. Couples whose relationship lasted longer incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity: “The single most important factor that keeps couples together past the 10-year mark is the lack of possessiveness,” observed two scholars who were also partners, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison. “Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can be the greatest internal threat to their staying together.”
Second, the unions are very fragile. The probability of breakup is high for lesbian couples. In a 2010 report, the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, 40 percent of the couples who had conceived a child by artificial insemination had broken up. Lisa Diamond reported in her book, Sexual Fluidity, that “more than two-thirds of the women in my sample had changed their identity labels at least once after the first interview. The women who kept the same identity for the whole ten years proved to be the smallest and most atypical group.” If a woman in a same-sex relationship changes her identity label, the relationship breaks up.
And third, the couple may not necessarily be physically healthy. Dutch research has found that most new HIV infections in Amsterdam occurred among homosexual men who were in steady relationships. The researcher concluded that: “Prevention measures should address risky behavior, especially with steady partners, and the promotion of HIV testing.” Research shows that same sex unions suffer a significantly higher prevalence of domestic abuse, depression, substance-abuse disorders, and sexually transmitted diseases. Should adopted children be placed with a couple at risk of a serious and emotionally draining illness?
#30. Polygamy and incest to follow.
The second comes in a background article by Ralph Richard Banks, a professor at Stanford Law School. What comes after gay marriage? Well, he puts his money on polygamy and incest. Professor Banks points out those legal prohibitions on either practice are not nearly as strong as they once were. They are forbidden because people who engage in them are regarded as morally reprehensible. Therefore society feels justified in discriminating against them. But this is bound to change he says with the advent of SSM.
#31. Opposition to SSM is not religious. It is based on natural order.
Defining marriage as the union of male and female is not something unique to Christian theology, biblical teaching, or even a Judeo-Christian worldview. In fact, until the last blink of an eye in human history, there has never been any civilization, any religion, or any culture that has treated homosexual relationships as the full equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Marriage is not simply a religious institution, nor is it merely a civil institution. Instead, marriage is a natural institution, whose definition as the union of a man and a woman is rooted in the order of nature itself.
Thirty one reasons for 31 days of the month. I am sure there others which you can use. Some of the reasons are similar but can be useful to reinforce the points made.
