NC Family Policy Council Releases Hilarious/Sad Report On Anti-LGBT Amendment

The North Carolina Family Policy Council has released a new report called, 'Countering the Deception: Responding to Allegations About the Marriage Protection Amendment' (PDF).

It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Commenting on it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. So I'll let you take a look at it yourself.

It is summarized below, however (in their own words), if you're not a glutton for punishment.
1: “The MPA is anti-LGBT, and represents an attack on LGBT North Carolinians.”
Response: Nothing about the MPA is anti-homosexual—it is simply a defense against an attack on marriage that is being waged by the REAL AGGRESSORS, homosexual activists and their allies, who are seeking to redefine marriage in every state in this nation.

2: “The MPA will write discrimination into the State Constitution.”
Response: The MPA is about preservation, not discrimination. It would preserve the definition of marriage that has existed throughout history in the State Constitution, and at the same time make a positive statement about what constitutes a marriage in North Carolina.

3: “The MPA is a form of religious-based bigotry.”
Response: The MPA is really about protecting the rights to free speech and religious liberty, which, as this accusation shows, are seriously threatened by the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” It will help preserve the ability of the Church to continue to transmit traditional values about sex, gender, and marriage—including what the Bible says about homosexual activity.

4: “The MPA is harmful to the children of LGBT individuals and young people who identify as LGBT.”
Response: The MPA will help to protect all children by maintaining the marital norm for society of one man, one woman that has endured for centuries and is backed up by social science evidence because no other family form can provide children what they need to thrive, or duplicate its benefits for individuals and society.

1 comment:

  1. ....WHAT? Their argument in #3 makes absolutely NO sense. My brain hurts a little trying to understand their backwards logic. They are protecting religious liberty by basing a law on one particular religion...and free speech is only allowed if...you're saying what the Bible says? Agghhh!