Arguments Against Religion

Most arguments I see against the Supreme Court same-sex marriage decision are religious in nature. Scripture-quoting is ubiquitous. So, why would an atheist be against the decision? Here are a few reasons I have reservations regarding the decision. I believe these are items that have not been thought through by most same-sex marriage supporters. We live in a society that does what feels good and warm and fuzzy in the moment without consideration of long-term consequences.

1. Redefining of marriage is a slippery slope. If love is the main criterion for marriage and #lovewins, a person who is for same-sex marriage is inevitably for polygamy, polyandry, group/swinger marriages, and even – I know this is a stretch – possible sibling marriage (possibly with laws concerning birth control, or even widows after menopause who find there long-lost love for their sibling). I’m a heterosexual man,  but let’s say I was bisexual and my wife wanted to marry me and my boyfriend, or we wanted to marry a swinger couple we all share together. If 3 or more people love each other and are consenting adults, why not? If you say you are FOR same-sex marriage but AGAINST polygamy, you are not being consistent or intellectually honest. The societal change with anything-goes marriage definitions will have fallout way beyond the institution of marriage because marriage is about much more than just feelings of love. If you change the gender, why not the number? If you are against multiple person marriages, YOU are the bigot. The movement has started – read politico Here.
2. Children will be sexually confused by forceful changes in education. Now that same sex marriage is sanctioned by law, our public schools, kids TV shows, commercials and other advertising, etc. will be forced to include stories of “prince-prince” and “princess-princess.” I have 3 children and I know that there is a point very young when they begin to notice their sexuality, the opposite sex, and even primal roles/identities that the sexes take on. To completely confuse them with mandatory reading in school (and yes it will come) will be a huge problem for parents to navigate, and for children to understand. The topic should be reserved for later in maturity, but it will definitely be pushed in early childhood publications and school curricula, as well as TV shows etc. I understand that there are children who have gender identity disorder who need help understanding their sexuality (and we should absolutely help them), but we should not take a challenging and even traumatic experience from a minority of kids and transfer it to the majority of kids just to cater to the minority. The large percentage of children and parents who are born with heterosexual tendencies will be forced to handle new and unforeseen territory – there is enough to deal with as parents in the arena of sexuality to then have more confusing issues forced upon kids at an early age or in school. The movement has started – read article HERE.
3. We’re trying to make everyone the SAME, not EQUAL. The sexes are different. If you deny this, you have no common sense. And your partner is probably not thrilled in the long run, either (in my opinion especially females – they want a man with male instincts, not a “hairy female” for a partner – quote from Dennis Prager). Men and women are wired to have different needs, instincts, and emotional/psychological makeup. Watch any kid grow from childbirth, look up dating advice sites on how to interact with the opposite sex, or simply think of the men or women in your life. We all have rights. We all have dignity and need respect. But we are not the same. Rather than teaching our kids to embrace their sexuality, we will confuse them by telling them that there basically is no such thing as gender differences – while at the same time they will be hormonally charged in whichever direction their identity is gravitating. Many people who support same-sex marriage laws are very uncomfortable acknowledging any differences between the sexes – and it is due to the desire to make all beings and genders the same. As just one example, look at the featured image for this post as representative of trying to make genders the same by stripping their inherent nature, as well as the loss of boys’ male role models (boys especially need models of good men, masculinity, integrity, and manhood more than ever) and tell me you don’t feel a slight aura of loss in strong, ethical male ideology. A sense of forcing gender identities to be not equal, but the same. Yes, there are masculine gay men – but the same-sex marriage movement is attempting to force the disappearance of gender/sex roles and identities overall. Lastly on this point, many people argue that interracial marriages shouldn’t be discriminated, so same-sex shouldn’t be, either. This is the perfect example of making genders the same – a black male and a white male are male, but a black male and a black female or completely different. But we are trying to deny men and women are different.
4. Businesses and organizations will be forced to change by “thought police.” If you own a jewelry shop and do not have advertisements including same-sex couples, you will be called bigoted. If you air a TV commercial for your business and do not include same-sex parent households, you will be called bigoted. If you are a wedding musician/photographer/officiant and do not have pictures on your website of same-sex couples, you will be called bigoted.  Charities will be forced to include same-sex households or be shut down, even if they support or favor traditional marriage and even if they do a lot of good for many people. I’m a musician and know maybe people in the wedding business. Here is a quote from a photographer friend of mine on Facebook Joe P. “I just heard a conversation that, in short, a wedding photographer may not decline to photograph a same-sex wedding because the state issued him/her a business license thereby granting a privilege to do business.” Intolerance will only grow from this decision.

So, whats the solution? If you are in a same-sex relationship, want to have a ceremony, want to adopt kids – that’s great. I believe homosexuals should be able to live how their nature dictates and lead a happy, fulfilling life. However, hijacking society through government is Orwellian and strong-arming people into agreeing with a lifestyle that is different from their own. People should have a choice, not a government mandate. Example:

I am in a minority group – atheist. It took me years to “come out” and was a struggle for me. I lost customers who found out I was an atheist, as well as damaged family relationships (especially with my parents). I know it’s not exactly the same, but I can sympathize with a minority group feeling left out by society or disrespected. However, I absolutely do NOT want the government to put “atheist” on currency, or “agnostic” on stamps, or make laws to force schools to include atheist couples as part of the curriculum or TV shows to include atheist families, or force officiants to marry atheist couples lest they be called bigots if it conflicts with their worldview. I also didn’t try to get the government to strong-arm officiants to marry me and my wife because we weren’t believers. We just found someone else to do it! People should be able to live by the merits of their belief system without government intrusion.

Last point – marriage is NOT about love. The institution of marriage is much bigger than just romantic feelings for someone. It is a framework for society, for the distinction of genders (not to say men only should work and women should be barefoot in the kitchen, but the intersection and complimenting of the sexes and how they interact and frame society is important), and also for rearing children. Don’t give me the line about “male-female marriages fail and hurt kids, and same-sex couple raise great kids.” Yes, that is true in some cases, but the ideal is important. Especially for boys. The male nature needs to be TAUGHT how to be a good man and modeled by fathers, and boys need a father to model how to treat a woman – the boy’s mother. This is why we have such a huge crisis in this country of struggling male fatherless youth. Boys NEED fathers to model how to be a man. This point could drag on with dozens of examples and arguments, but the overall idea is that we need the “ideal” as a framework for raising responsible males with integrity, and secure, loved, and emotionally healthy females,

I’m anticipating people commenting with ad hominem attacks. People will say what they will. But, if you attack me and not the arguments, who is the bigot? Who is intolerant?