Preserving the Ecosystem
of Marriage

Why is preserving the ecosystem of marriage important? It depends on your goals. If you believe in true freedom with minimal government intervention, then you should support the marriage ecosystem.

If you believe that true human freedom can coexist with government intervention in family life, then preserving the ecosystem of marriage is not important. Like the mega-corporations defiling our natural resources with profits as their sole motive, the only reasons for redefining marriage are personal reasons. Future generations will have to clean up the mess created with redefining parenthood as a side effect of redefining marriage. Since the mega-corporations don't care about future generations, those who destroy the marriage ecosystem will join their ranks decades from now as they are vilified by new generations who have to live with the consequences.

We hold that preserving the ecosystem of marriage is important. Marriage serves as a significant building block of western civilization. If marriage becomes completely redefined, our civilization will eventually collapse. This is not an attack on anybody; rather, it is a defense of future generations who we believe will want marriage to remain as it is, so that parenthood can remain as it is.

The gradual re-definition of marriage is contributing to poverty, reduced economic opportunity for women who bear children outside of marriage, reduced educational levels for children, and many other ill effects we will discuss on these pages. Preserving the ecosystem of marriage is vitally important for future generations.

Furthermore, we have identified many of the methods being used by the Left. Such methods include:

1. Making their opponents look bad at every opportunity. Here's a page from their playbook:

   Step 5: At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

   Taken from The Overhauling of Straight America, by by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill. If the link no longer works, here is a cached version of the page: cached version.

   This piece was was later expanded into a book, called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's

   Example: GLAAD list from 2012.

2. Lack of argument. There are two components to this.
   • Lack of sociological argument. There is no coherent, sociologically based argument for gay marriage or marriage equality. Going forward, we would like all of our readers to examine news stories, youtube videos, blog posts, etc related to gay marriage and see if they are based on overarching sociological reasons, or on private and personal reasons.

     For example, there was a YouTube video making the rounds in early 2012 during the Washington State vote on same sex marriage, with Republican legislator Maureen Walsh telling why she decided to vote to redefine marriage. I honestly believe most people are simply ignorant of the non religious reasons to support marriage as being defined only between one man and one woman, including Ms. Walsh. Like many others, she has no idea that voting to redefine marriage leaves the door wide open to redefine parenthood. But apart from her ignorance, my jaw dropped at the end, when she gave a personal reason for her vote as the capstone of her speech: she wants to throw a wedding for her gay daughter.

     Watch it here:

     Maureen Walsh on her vote to legalize same sex marriage

   • Always play offense, never play defense. Instead of making a positive argument for one of their positions which they would then need to defend, they "play offense" by always discrediting the conservative side. And I do mean ALWAYS. As in, that's ALL some sites do - their entire focus and mission is to discredit all who disagree with the gay agenda. These same sites NEVER put forth their own sociological based reasons preserving the ecosystem of marriage.

     For example, the Philadelphia Inquirer recently published a series of articles attacking Bob Patterson, who was a welfare adviser to governor Corbett in Pennsylvania, and also serves as editor of the Howard Center's Family in America publication. Instead of putting forth a positive argument, such as "Our welfare system is fine and here's why," the Inquirer devised a campaign to smear Mr. Patterson, and they got him fired from his adviser job because of it.

     There are many, many websites and blogs that do this. It's a smoke screen. Don't fall for it.

3. Not careful about source citations. Sometimes you will see accusations made without any sources cited. Other times you will see second hand sources cited.

   Here is a good example: Open Letter to Starbucks, Warning about NOM.

   If you read the article, you'll notice that the author embeds many links to backup his claims against NOM. But if you click the links, they take you to other LGBT (or related) sites, not to NOM sites. This is an example of using a second hand source instead of an original source. As an author it's often easier to use a second hand source than an original source, but as a reader it should raise a red flag in your mind when you see this.

4. Ignoring the arguments. If they ignore our arguments about preserving the ecosystem of marriage, fewer people know about them. This is a very smart tactic on their part.

5. Playing the "bigot" card. This is usually done in conjunction with #2. Instead of addressing the arguments in a logical manner, they cry "bigot." This tactic is very effective.

6. Attacking people for what they did not say. This is also called Straw Man.

7. Smoke screen. Confusing the sociological perspective of marriage with the personal perspective of marriage; trying to make personal reasons for marriage the basis for not preserving the ecosystem of marriage.

8. Putting a taboo on the instruments of critique. For example, many proponants of gay marriage will try to dismiss Natural Law as if it's an outmoded or archaic way of thinking. If they can convince you that Natural Law is not valid, they have won.

9. Do all gays want gay marriage? They often speak about gay marriage without mentioning that there are vocal gays who oppose it. Gays against gay marriage (YouTube video).

10. Preserving the ecosystem is not important - creating a new one is. The entire thrust of the Left is to create a new sort of society, and the nuclear family must be destroyed or at least severely weakened in order to bring this about.

11. Pretending that ALL gays were born that way. I am not going to debate whether or not there is a "gay gene." What I want to point out is that SOME people who practice the homosexual lifestyle have chosen that lifestyle later in life. I don't not know how many or what percentage, but I know it's true. Many gay blogs and websites NEVER discuss it, because then readers might start to wonder, "Well, if SOME have chosen that lifestyle, HOW MANY have chosen that lifestyle?" And that subject is totally off the table anymore.

Example: Here is an exchange that took place on the Ruth Institute Facebook wall in Jan. 2012. If you read carefully and dispassionately, you can see several of the tactics at work, such as #1, #2, #3, and #4:

Tactical Example #1

Thank you for preserving the ecosystem of marriage! Check often for updates, or subscribe to our site via our RSS feed, located above.

Return to the home page: Preserving the Ecosystem