Family Research Council's Brochure


Hello all. I'm not debating the topic right now about homosexual marriage, I just want to tell everyone to go download a copy of the Family Research Council's brochure entitled "The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex Marriage". It's a fairly small FREE download (about 400KB), even for you dial-uppers out there, and it's well worth a read.

You can download a copy by clicking here.

From there, you must go through their order system, but you can just leave the Credit Card section blank unless you want to make a contribution.

Please read it, it's well worth it.


New Member
I'm going to read and comment further - I intend to say some GOOD things... ;)


[Edit: Couldn't get it without leaving personal information. Don't see why I should make the Order of Saint Leopold's job easier in the next burning times, so I'm afraid I can't comment]


Yeah, I would post it here, but some of the stuff gets a little detailed, so it might not be appropriate for younger viewers.

It's not a big download, guys, and it's worth it.



New Member
Care to post us a kid friendly summary - seeing as how kids aren't ready for actual information or something? (Although what the difference in printing the summary and providing the link is, I don't know!)



New Member
Here's a summary as summarized by the brochure itself:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In this pamphlet we will show the following:
• Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage
and the family.
• Same-sex relationships are not the equivalent of
traditional marriage
• Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue
• Americans overwhelmingly reject gay marriage
• Gay marriage is not a moral alternative to traditional
• Homosexuality is rightly viewed as unnatural.
But wait; there's more! Section headings and a paragraph (sections usually have about three) directly from the section iteself:

A Man and His Horse
It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.

The Threat to Marriage
The Missouri man and homosexual “marriage” proponents categorically reject the defi nition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The “Polyamory” Movement
The movement to redefi ne marriage has found full expression in what is variously called “polyfi delity” or “polyamory,” which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations between various groups of individuals.

Anti-Marriage Activists
the polyamory movement has taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents “are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic fi eld of marriage and family law.” Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor of “a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law.”

The Frat House Concept of “Family”
The “frat house with revolving bedroom doors” concept of marriage and the family poses dangers to children.

Same-Sex Relationships are not the Equivalent of Marriage
- Relationship duration
- Monogamy versus promiscuity
- Intimate partner violence

What about the Children?
Vico warned that chaos would ensue in the absence of strong social norms encouraging marital faithfulness and the loving care of children born to the union.

Gay Marriage is not a Civil Rights Issue
no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person.

The Phony Comparison with Race
Many black Americans are understandably offended when gay activists, who have never been relegated to the back of a bus, equate their agenda with racial discrimination.

Upholding Traditional Marriage is not “Discrimination”
Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefi t or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally.

Americans Reject Gay Marriage
Typical of polls on the subject, a Fox News poll conducted after the Massachusetts ruling found that Americans oppose same-sex marriage by an overwhelming 66 to 25 percent margin.

Polls Cite Moral Objections to Homosexuality
A Pew Research poll released in November 2003 reported: “The most common reasons given for objecting to gay and lesbian marriage are moral and religious. … More than eight in ten opponents of gay marriage (82 percent) say it runs counter to their religious beliefs, with 73 percent completely agreeing with that sentiment.”

The Validity of Moral Arguments.
The conviction that human sexuality is rightfully expressed within marriage between a man and a woman is deeply rooted in our history and Judeo- Christian beliefs.

The Gay Agenda vs. Nature
A Public Perspectives survey found that 69 percent of those surveyed report being “very much” or “somewhat” bothered by seeing a person “kissing someone of the same sex in public.”

Homosexuality is Unnatural
The advocates of anti-marriage and anti-family sexuality face yet another foe: divinely created nature itself. According to the above-mentioned Pew Poll, the next most frequent reason given for opposing gay marriage is that “homosexuality is not natural/ normal” (9 percent). This response is followed by “the purpose of marriage is to have children” (4 percent)

Gay Marriage: A No Show in History
Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan point out that the so called “evidence” for homosexual marriage comes primarily from small, isolated pre-literate tribes. Lubin and Duncan point out that “a great many of the primitive societies deemed by Eskridge to be tolerant of [samesex marriage] ... have also been known to engage in other practices, such as cannibalism, female genital mutilation, massacre or enslavement of enemies taken in war, and other practices which was once held to be the duty of the civilized to extirpate.”

How Does Gay Marriage Harm Your Marriage?
One might as well ask, “How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?” Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defi ned his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested “yardstick” for marriage. One cannot alter the defi nition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the defi nition of a yardstick.

A Federal Marriage Amendment: Protection against Judicial Tyranny
There is growing danger of activist judges disregarding marriage laws passed by a majority of the population and enshrined in centuries of legal precedence, and imposing homosexual marriage on the nation.

Written by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies at Family Research Council

Wow! That sure was great stuff! It took me a lot of effort to copy/paste that from Acrobat, so if you guys don't read this and initiate a stimulating discussion, I'm going to hunt you down stab you with a rusty spoon!

And no, I'm definately not bored.


New Member
Gahhhh... More Middle of the road, middle aged, Middle AGES tripe from the country that pays overcrowded third world countries to have more kids.


Grand Master

New Member
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]A Public Perspectives survey found that 69 percent of those surveyed report being “very much” or “somewhat” bothered by seeing a person “kissing someone of the same sex in public.”
I think most people are also bothered by seeing a heterosexual couple kissing in public.


Sorry I took forever everyone!

To *try* to sum the brochure up, it simply gives numerous accounts of such practices as a man trying to marry a horse, the "polyamary" movement, and various statistics and surveys taken about the harmful effects something such as homosexual marriage could have on our nation, as well as taking apart the argument that homosexuality is a "civil right".

All in all, you just need to go download it! Though the things mentioned in the brochure are digusting to read about (I wouldn't read it to my kids), it does provide some insight on the subject.

Hope everyone downloads a copy, reads it, and passes it on.


New Member
I particuarly liked:

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]How Does Gay Marriage Harm Your Marriage?
One might as well ask, “How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?”
Do we have any anti-homosexual marriage supporters who are willing to defend and argue for this document?


New Member
Gee, see the thing is that a $20 bill is a promise for a value of goods, based on wealth held in trust by the government. So printing a $20 increases the amount of money in circulation without increasing the amount of wealth that money represents. In essence you divide the held wealth by a larger sum, thus reducing the value of every $20 bill by an infitesimal amount.

Please explain to me how a same sex marriage, in which two individuals make a promise to EACH OTHER which they effectively ask society to witness, degrades the value of everyone elses marriage.

The currency of marriage is Honour, Duty and Love. There is NOT a finite amount of any of these currencies, so them creating a marriage does not reduce the amount of Honour, Duty and Love in YOUR marriage.

I'd like to see someone who believes in this propaganda defend this point.


hmm...ya know what, I think Christians should go in, an tear down Stone Henge or the Bocan Stone Circle an put a great big mega-church on those sites.  I mean they were used in various religious style rituals years ago, so we should just put a church there an worship on those sites how we want to.  Forget the history of the places. Forget what they mean to other people, we need a church there, because since they were  religious places, we as Christians need to be able to worship there in our way, in one of our churches.

Now, if the previous statements upset you in any way, think how the attack on marriage affects those who believe a marriage is by a fundamental definition between men an women.  In the same way that you would defend Stone Henge  or the Bocan Stone Circle(and for the record so would I) for it's social, historical an religious aspects, we should be defending the social institution of marriage on the same grounds.   Marriage has ALWAYS been a social contract between a man and a woman, that has transcended cultures and religions.  In the same way we should not destroy the sacred places of other religions, we should not destory this institution that is common to all cultures and religions.


New Member
No, saying that from now on ONLY single sex marriages would be permissible by law, and that heterosexual couples now married would henceforth be described as having a "Breeding Contract" might be the closest you could get to Christians destroying (yet another) Pagan holy site.

As I said before - you have the right to keep it out of your church, but these people are taxpayers too, they deserve full rights under law.



They have full rights under the law.  Nothings stopping them from marrying.  Just because you have to marry someone who's not related to you and of the opposite sex, does not mean they're not allowed to marry.

There has always been rules on who you can an cannot marry.  Why should we destroy marriage by changing them?  And why stop with just the same sex if we're going to do so?  Incest, bestiality, age, why have any of those be factors in not allowing a marriage?  For if you begin destroying marriage now, by allowing same-sex marriages, those barriers will fall as well.  You'll see old men, married to pre-pubscent girls, brother an sisters married.  There's a guy out there who wants to marry his horse!

No.  For society to work, there HAS to be a line that is drawn and say this is how it works.  Even those in your native Britain see this, an you have cabinent members saying that multi-culturalism is destroying Britian.  Sooner or later, we have to realize that we, as a culture, cannot be all things to all people.  We have to have a standard framework upon which to build society, and for millenia, societies around this world have had that framework upon which to build a culture, the nuclear-style family.


New Member
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Incest, bestiality, age, why have any of those be factors in not allowing a marriage?
Because none of them involve relationships of mutal respect and love between two consenting adults.