Myth #14: There are no differences between gay marriage and straight marriage.
Reality: Studies show two key elements missing in same-sex marriage.
Those two elements appear to be fidelity and oneness. Let's start with oneness first.
We've all heard the theology of Adam and Eve, ie how each was made to complement the other so I won't go into more detail on that. However, I will point out this oneness the Bible speaks of is much more than a lovely idea or just a mere theological concept but rather a provable scientific fact.
According to Dr. Youmasu J. Siewe, director of the Center for Rural Health Practice at the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, married individuals have lower rates of depression and schizophrenia compared to unmarried individuals. They also handle stress better and are unlikely to feel lonely. Married individuals, according to Siewe, feel more hopeful and better about themselves than unmarried individuals.
This has not been proven to be the case in gay marriage.
As I stated in Part 2, if the gay relationship did have benefits, then one of the most obvious benefits would be increased life span, but gays in a "committed relationship" (more on this in a bit) have SHORTER lifespans, not longer. In fact, the numbers show what the Catholic Church has said all along: people with homosexual tendencies are better off if they live alone than with someone who enables their sin.
Notice how I put "committed relationship" the way I did? Because that is mocking a little known fact about gay relationships:
Unlike heterosexual relationships where faithfulness to your partner is not only a given but is also an unspoken expectation, in gay relationships it is expected that each partner will cheat on the other.
This was first proven in a 1984 study. This study follows the classic research of McWhirter and Mattison, reported in The Male Couple (1984), which found that not a single male pair was able to maintain fidelity in their relationship for more than five years. Studies done since 1984 have shown nothing has changed in the gay community in almost three decades. In one recent study of gay male couples, 41.3% had open sexual agreements with some conditions or restrictions, and 10% had open sexual agreements with no restrictions on sex with outside partners. One-fifth of participants (21.9%) reported breaking their agreement in the preceding 12 months, and 13.2% of the sample reported having unprotected anal intercourse in the preceding three months with an outside partner of unknown or discordant HIV-status.
Even Alfred Kinsey, of the debunked "10% of all people are gay" notion, admitted in his findings that long term homosexual relationships were few and far between.
The desire for sexual fidelity in relationships and the benefits of such a commitment are universal. In the long history of man, infidelity has never been associated with maturity. Even in cultures where it is relatively common, it is no more than discreetly tolerated.
Myth #15: If one is for liberty, one must be for gay marriage.
Reality: Liberty is not possible with the acceptance of gay marriage.
Liberty is defined as the value of individuals to have control over their own actions, but in the classical definition, liberty meant the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion. One could also extend this to mean a belief that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions.
When someone accuses a group of taking away their liberty when that group as a whole don't believe in liberty themselves, then we have the mess we're in now. Already, we have lawsuits against business over this. Consider these examples:
-A Seattle florist is being sued by a lesbian couple because she refused to sell them flowers for their wedding. Even though she stated it conflicted with her religious beliefs, that wasn't good enough to prevent the lawsuit. (Story can be found here.)
-A cake decorator in Colorado had a motion filed against him by the state attorney general after he refused an order for a gay wedding ceremony. (Story can be found here.)
-The Knights of Columbus (which I am a proud member of) was fined $2,000 by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal after they learned a contract they approved was going towards using one of their facilities for a gay wedding. (here).
My point is when someone is not allowed to voice their opposition to what they believe is wrong, and when feelings are allowed to trump the truth---no matter what it may be--, then their liberty is infringed and the whole concept of liberty loses all meaning.
Even voters in California now know how little their liberty means: despite the fact the majority of voters said yes to only heterosexual marriage, and despite the fact no evidence of voter fraud could be found, that didn't matter to the courts, who said the voters do not have a legal interest in whether the amendment they voted on is allowed to be part of their constitution.
Myth #16: It was a great victory to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act
Reality: Even the Supreme Court admitted states can decide for themselves.
Don't let all the celebrations over the Supreme Court ruling fool you: the Supreme Court did not---I REPEAT, DID NOT---say gay marriage is legal, nor did they make any rulings concerning the full faith and credit over state lines or any ruling concerning states with constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. As far as the court is concerned, those bans are still in effect. In the opinion of this blogger, that will be the next legal battle concerning this issue, which will in reality be a fight between activist judges vs the vote of the people.
Myth #17: People should be allowed to marry whoever they want.
Reality: It is not up to individual people to define what a marriage is.
In the Catholic Church, there exists a notion called subsidiarity. In a nutshell, it means that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized (or most localized) competent authority. So to break it down: the proper authority to decide matters needs to be:
-the most local, as in closest to you
-proven competence in the area in question.
Now, let's look at the more complicated issue of marriage. Who gets to decide what counts as a marriage? Our options are individual people, church or state. Sure, each person could decide for themselves, but consider what that often entailed. Men often left their wives when the wife was too old to have more children; an individual person came up with the idea of no-fault divorce laws. Now we have people wanting polygamy and poly-amorous relationships. If people decided it, what's to stop them from wanting to marry their pets? So people don't have that authority.
What about the state? The state can never have the right to define marriage because of a conflict of interest, i.e. it would conflict with their need to have more citizens for the future and their need to want to protect everyone's rights. The best it can do is acknowledge the marriages done by the only proper authority:
"But wait," some may ask. "If churches are the only ones with the authority, then if a church officiates it, then you must accept it."
Again, that might make sense...except the churches that do allow this are losing members because of this very subject. Giving only churches the authority doesn't change the fact it's still up to the parishioners whether they want to stay.
And there you have it: every last myth about homosexuality debunked and the truth brought to the light of day.