Comment Policy

Comment Policy: Comments are allowed, but please keep them focused on the topic of the post you are commenting on. Comments and/or spam not pertaining to the subject of a particular post will most likely be deleted.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Why 10 years (at least for me) is enough

***UPDATE 8/4/2019***

Recently I was interviewed by conspiracy debunker Mick West on his show Tales from the Rabbit Hole, to discuss my years of activism and eventual retirement from the Truth Movement. Video of the interview has now been posted. Thank you to Mick West for doing the interview and having me on.

(One correction: Around the 39 minute mark I discuss the collapse of Building 7 and mention that it fell in free fall for a hundred stories. I misspoke, and meant to say 100 feet.)

Original post

Today marks the 16 year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. But I've recently had my own personal anniversary this past August. It has been officially 10 years since I first began my research into the events of 9/11/2001. I've told parts of this story elsewhere, but I need to tell it again here.

I was only 10 years old when 9/11 happened. I knew next to nothing about politics, and I certainly had no idea that the kind of evil perpetrated that day could be a reality. Fear was everywhere that day, and would be in the years that followed. For the most part, I had no doubt that Islamic extremists were the sole cause of what happened, and as much as I was dismayed at the ensuing wars that resulted, I knew a truly evil crime had been committed, someone had to be punished, and justice needed to be served. But throughout the years, I also heard from time to time talk about a "conspiracy" behind 9/11: that the attacks were in fact caused by people within the US government, staging a so-called false-flag attack to blame on Muslims as a pretext to go to war. 

I didn't give this much thought whenever I'd hear this, because I figured there was no way that could happen. Sure, the government might know more about the attacks than what they were telling the public, but would they really do that? And how could they have done it? But my knowledge of such conspiracy theories at the time was extremely limited, and I didn't feel the need to take them seriously.

Then on August 20th, 2007, I had (as cliched as it sounds) a life changing experience. I was randomly flipping through the channels on TV, when I came across a documentary on the History Channel titled "9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?" The aim of the film was obviously to debunk the conspiracy theories people had proposed over the years. And it peaked my interest. After all, I had only superficial knowledge about these ideas up to that point, and I had never really taken the time to listen to them. So I figured, why not? Lets listen to what these people were actually saying. And what the documentary showed really surprised me.

For starters, I was surprised at how many people were convinced by these ideas. I had no idea that there was a real "movement" behind this conspiracy theory, and the images of people protesting and marching for what they believed really showed me just had far these ideas had spread. I was surprised at how much time and effort was being spent by these people to promote these ideas. Things like banners, entire websites and full-length films were produced, all with the intention of promoting the idea that the official story of 9/11 was a lie. But perhaps what I was most surprised at was just how many anomalies these researchers had found in regards to the attacks. Regardless of what you think of the documentary, it was an excellent summary of all the different problems people had found with the official narrative, most of which I had never heard. And, I was also surprised at how the answers debunkers had to these theories were unsatisfactory. 

For example, the question of the Twin Towers' collapse rates was brought up, how they seemed to collapse far to quickly due to just gravity alone. This suggested that the Towers were actually destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. The film's answer to this? That controlled demolitions generally start from the bottom of a building, not the top, so they could not be demolitions. Setting aside the fact that not all demolitions start at the bottom, my reaction to this answer was essentially "Wait, what? That doesn't explain how they collapsed so quickly. If anything, the fact that the collapse started at the top instead of the bottom makes the problem worse, not better." Another example was their discussion of how the hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour wasn't experienced enough to fly the plane into the Pentagon as he supposedly did. The film's answer? That Hanjour had a pilot's licence and had trained in simulators, so he probably could have done it. This was despite the fact (and brought up in the film) that even experienced pilots said they couldn't have done what Hanjour supposedly did. 

All of this was so strange to me. I had no bias on this issue one way of the other, but I couldn't help shake this feeling that something was really wrong here. Why, if the official narrative was true, did the debunkers' answers seem so insufficient? I later learned how much more the film had gotten wrong, and what a deceptive hit-piece it really was.

After the film was over, I was unsure what to think. I wasn't convinced 9/11 was an inside job, but I was convinced that these ideas were worth looking into. So the next question for me was, what do I do now? After all, I was completely new to all this. How was I going to go about researching this? What do I start with? After watching the film, the only thing I had to go off of was another documentary, discussed at length by the filmmakers: Loose Change. So once I had access to a computer, I sat down one afternoon and watched the 2nd Edition (the 3rd Edition hadn't been released yet). It was an extremely eye-opening film, to say the least. Much of what it brought up wasn't even discussed by the History Channel piece, and even subjects that were discussed were explained in much more detail than what the History Channel showed. I was shown evidence I hadn't seen before, and it compelled me to want to keep researching this.

(The irony, of course, is that today I would never recommend anyone watch Loose Change 2nd Edition. Because of everything I've learned over the years, I've found the film contains far too many errors and dubious claims for me to possibly consider recommending it to people. The 3rd and 4th editions are far superior, and I've recommended them frequently. Still, I appreciate that the film gave me further insight into all the different theories about 9/11 out there, and helped me to distinguish between good evidence and bad evidence).

From there, I found several useful 9/11 websites, including Jim Hoffman's encyclopedic 911research site, and sites such as 911truth and 911blogger. As I looked through the evidence over the next year, I became more and more convinced that the official narrative was wrong, and that the attacks were very likely carried out by insiders within the US government. But I was also interested in what the debunkers had to say as well. To be sure, they raised good points from time to time, but overall I did not find their arguments convincing.

Then in 2009, I had yet another life-changing moment, partly due again to Loose Change. It was announced that the Loose Change crew would be releasing a fourth edition of the film: Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup. Needless to say, I was very excited about this, and wanted to be kept up-to-date on the progress of the film. So I began to frequent the Loose Change website, and in particular its forum (though I never signed up as a poster). And one day while scrolling through a thread, I found someone had posted a link to a website I had never heard of: And I found it was a comprehensive site devoted to answering the claims of 9/11 debunkers, run by activist John-Michael Talboo. I eventually contacted him, just to tell him how impressed I was with the site, and told him and the other contributors to keep up the good work. I myself had produced a series of videos aimed at debunking the debunkers, and John-Michael offered to post them at his site. Eventually, he asked if I would like to become a contributor, and while I had never written for a website, I happily accepted the offer.

The next several years was the prime of my 911 research, answering debunker claims while doing further research into the attacks. I was so convinced that we would eventually have a new investigation, that we would bring the real perpetrators to justice, and justice would be served for 9/11 victims and their family members.

With all of that said, I have to make it clear from the get-go what this post is not. This is not me selling out, declaring that I now believe the official story. Let me make this clear: I still believe we have not been told the full truth about 9/11. I still fully support a new investigation into the attacks. And yes, I still believe there is substantial evidence suggesting that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed with controlled demolition. I've laid out my reasons for thinking so in my response to Chris Mohr, to date still my most comprehensive presentation of the evidence. As I said when I first posted it, there are some things in it that I would tweak, but for the most part I still stand by it. The events of 9/11 should be re- investigated, and the includes the destruction of those buildings.

But now to what this post is. I guess you could call it my official statement of retirement from the Truth Movement. It's been something I've planned to do for a long time now, and today of all days seems like the right time to do it. For whatever successes the movement has had, it seems as though its failures have overtaken them, hence why we still have yet to get a new investigation. From 2008 to 2011, the movement still had energy to it, still that hope of accomplishing our goal of getting an investigation. But for the last several years, I've felt next to no energy from it, no hope, and no motivation. Ironically, I felt the first signs of this at another 10-year anniversary; the 10-year anniversary  of 9/11.

That one was especially important for me, because it was the first time I was ever in New York for 9/11. Me, John-Michael and his wife had gone out to join our fellow truthers to
Me in New York, 9/11/2011.
demonstrate, and it was an incredible experience. Finally, after years of blogging and making videos about the attacks, relegating myself to presenting the evidence digitally from my computer, I was finally there. I was among like-minded activists for the first time, physically joining them in their call for a new investigation. Yet despite the energetic optimism I felt, I couldn't help but see the signs that the movement was on its last legs.

For starters, the turn-out was vastly smaller than what I had seen before. It's been said that the Truth Movement's strength peaked in 2006, and indeed that may very well be true. The 2006 rally literally had thousands of truthers in attendance. In 2011, I'd estimate maybe only a couple hundred (if that). Moreover, I listened to what they were saying there, and so much of it was the poor and unsubstantiated ideas reminiscent of Loose Change 2nd edition. It was now 10 years after the attacks, and if there was ever a time to stop discussing the bad evidence and just focus on the good, it was now. A specific highlight for me was that as I was talking with a critic about the evidence for controlled demolition, I mentioned that I did not believe in no-planer theories, and stated that I firmly believed a plane did strike the Pentagon. A truther nearby heard me, and actually interrupted me to say "wait, what do you mean a plane hit the building?" Sigh.

It was the first warning sign I'd seen, but it was a big one. I can't say for sure that the movement peaked in 2006, but one thing was for sure: it peaked for me in 2011.

After the 10-year anniversary came and went, the next several years showed me more signs that the movement was coming to a close. Despite the fact that we had finally gotten numerous papers published in peer-reviewed journals, we didn't seem to be getting any closer to our goal. Even the paper from Steven Jones that showed actual evidence of explosives in the debris wasn't enough to do it, and I thought if any paper could do it, it'd be that one. But not only did it not pave the way for a new investigation, a counter-study had been published by James Millette, casting doubt on the validity of it all. Sure enough, responses were posted, and there was promise of a third study of the WTC dust meant to finally answer the question of whether or not we had actual evidence of explosives being used. But this study, undertaken by Mark Basile, has now taken longer than Steven Jones' and James Millette's studies combined. The last thing I've seen posted about it isn't promising, and I honestly doubt any such study is going to be completed. If it does get done, great. But until I see results, I see no reason to get my hopes up.

I've also been extremely dismayed by the activities of AE911Truth. As much as I have appreciated their work, I've seen no indication that they are any closer to getting us a new investigation. Specifically, I have been incredibly frustrated at the lack of work from them published in peer-reviewed journals. The Journal of 911 Studies is all well and good, but the way to get the message out there to the scientific community is to get your beliefs and assertions in a venue that can be reviewed by other outside experts. Granted, I know there has been concern that journals won't publish such material, and indeed there have been several cases where journals have rejected work from the movement for the strangest reasons (example, example, example). So I understand that getting these ideas in established journals wouldn't be easy. But it's not impossible, as shown by other engineers and scientists in the movement. Think about it. AE911Truth currently has nearly 3000 qualified experts signed on to their petition demanding a new investigation. If just, say, 100 of them each published a paper in engineering journals, don't you think that at least a few of them would get published? (
The closest thing I've seen is the study currently underway from the University of Alaska Fairbanks.) While I doubt I'm qualified to do so, the fact is that if I were running AE911Truth, I'd be doing things differently. But I'm just one guy. I'm not going to convince them to do things differently, and they have an audience I don't have.  Again, if they do have further success, great. But with as many experts as they have now, and how much time has passed, I'm done waiting around.

Furthermore, as with the truthers I interacted with in New York, there are still far too many spreading outright falsehoods and disinformation. I've been utterly disgusted by the activities of these people, including (just to name a few): Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker, Craig Ranke, Craig McKee, and others. I have no sympathy for these people, and as far as I'm concerned, they did more harm to the Truth Movement than any debunker ever could.

That gets me to the debunkers. Or, more specifically, one debunker; Ryan Mackey. A few years ago I read his paper analyzing the Truth Movement, and while there's plenty in it I would disagree with, I found several of his points worth considering. One of those being a simple suggestion he had for truthers:
To those still interested in the Truth Movement, I make only one suggestion: Take a break. Give yourself a full month away from the Truth Movement. Don’t argue on-line, don’t watch videos. For that matter, don’t read responses from skeptics, either. I don’t want you to be concerned about being “brainwashed” by debunkers – stay away from them as well. After this time has passed, feel free to get involved again and see if your perspective has changed. However, if you cannot set it aside for a month, and I do mean to set it aside completely, this should be a warning sign to you. After all, September 11th was over ten years ago. Nothing bad will happen if you leave it alone for a month. Give it a try. (p. 63) 
Again, there's plenty I think Mackey's gotten wrong. But in this case, I thought he had something here. So I decided to take his advice. Or rather, I should say I've been taking his advice. For the past couple of years, I've had periods where I've literally gone months without interacting with any 9/11-related material. And I honestly didn't feel bad about it. Sure, I've gone back to looking into from time to time, but I never felt as though I were missing anything, that anything had been lost from taking a break. It was actually pretty easy. And I think the reason for that is largely due to the state I've seen the movement currently in. With the way things are going, I can't see how we're going to accomplish our goals. I can't say it any plainer or any clearer: We are not going to get a new investigation. I know that's a hard pill for many of my fellow truthers to swallow, but I can't see any way around it.

And so, with this post I announce my official departure from the movement. This means I will not be taking part in any more Truth Movement activities. No more videos. No more blog posts. No more 9/11 activism of any kind. For me, 10 years is enough.

It also means I will be discontinuing my personal blog. I will still leave it up and mostly intact, but I will not be writing there any more. Seriously, I'm done.

But in saying that, I would like to also say that much of my time in the movement was extremely rewarding. I met several amazing people, whose passion to find the truth about that terrible day was inspiring to the extreme. As such, there are many within this movement I want to thank and show my sincerest gratitude.

First, I would like to thank AE911Truth. Despite my frustrations with them, I'm extremely grateful to them for publishing several of my articles at their website, and for the invaluable advice and assistance I received from several of their members.

I would also like to thank Jeff Hill, Bernie Suarez and Andy Steele, all who had me on their radio programs, and allowed me to speak to a wider audience than I would have been able to otherwise.

Thank you to the moderators at for publishing an article of mine. That I could contribute a scientific understanding of 9/11 at your site was extremely appreciative.

Thank you to the blog contributors at 911debunkers. I learned an enormous amount from all of you, and your insight into the attacks was more helpful than you'll ever know.

I would also like to thank the debunkers. Yes, that's right. Granted, this doesn't apply to all of them. Over the years, several of them were just complete dicks to me, and I honestly couldn't care less about them. But several of them provided civil, constructive criticisms that I always tried to take into account. Many of their arguments bettered me and my understanding of the attacks, and I'm grateful for that. And of course of all of them, I'm most grateful to Chris Mohr, whose video series gave me the chance to present a full, comprehensive demon-stration of the evidence. So to the debunkers, please know that I never considered you "enemies" of the Truth Movement. For me, the only enemies in this situation are those who carried out the attacks, whoever they may be.

Last but not least, my sincerest gratitude goes to John-Michael Talboo, one of my best friends, and the person who allowed me to do more in the movement that I ever thought I could. Allowing me to contribute to your site gave me the chance to be a part of something amazing, something that was making a real difference in the world. Not everyone would have given me that kind of chance, and there are no words to describe how grateful I am for that. Thank you brother.

It does sadden me immensely to know we won't get a new investigation. For me, none of this was about fame or making a name for myself, or believing the worst of the government just because I could. I started this because of my sympathy for the 9/11 victims' family members, many of whom I know are still hurting and want justice to be served for their loved ones. That this won't happen is my deepest regret. In many ways researching 9/11 took a heavy toll on me. I've watched countless videos of the destruction of that day, seen thousands of lives wiped out in an instant, and listened to and read the accounts of the people most seriously affected by the attacks. Even after all this time, it's never gotten any easier. 

So to my fellow truthers, all I have left to say is that, we gave it a good try, but I think it's time to call it a day. Move on to other causes. Work hard to better this country, and for that matter, the world. Let's work to prevent the next 9/11s from happening. Even though the movement is over, its creed should still go strong: ASK QUESTIONS. DEMAND ANSWERS.

Sunday, January 1, 2017


[This is the permanent top post. Scroll down for newer ones.]

Welcome to my blog. I have always felt hesitant about starting one of my own, but I finally decided that I needed a place to discuss all of my views in a more open manner. So, for my very first post, I guess I should explain who I am and why I started this blog in the first place. Who am I? My name is Adam Taylor. I've recently turned 21 (as of writing this), and I have a strong interest in world issues. Namely, issues regarding religion, politics, science (and what I consider pseudo-science), what some people may refer to as "conspiracy theories," and (as I say at the top of this site) whatever else I can think of. My views are often perceived by people I know and don't know as strange. I've always sorta been that way. But I can safely say that everything I believe has always had basis and fact behind it. I know some might consider that my own opinion, but I would counter by saying that it is merely your opinion that what I believe is based on opinion. Got it? :) Even though I may believe some strange things, I'm not really strange myself. I'm very normal. I've just seen and heard a lot of very strange things. So what are my main interests these days?


Anyone with access to the internet knows about the debates about what really happened on September 11th, 2001. People who question the official narrative of what happened are labeled "conspiracy theorists." However, I would say that I don't fit this category, since I don't place blame on any particular person or persons. I really don't know who carried out the attacks. Why do I research this topic? I initially was very skeptical of the alternative theories surrounding the attacks, and didn't give them any real notice. Then in late 2007, after seeing a documentary on the History Channel regarding these theories, I decided to look into it more. After years of research, I believe that we have not been told the full truth about what happened that day. Although I have studied the attacks as a whole, my main focus of study has been the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. I believe the official reports on their collapses are flawed, and that they were most likely destroyed through controlled demolition. I've written extensively on this issue over at the Debunking the Debunkers blog, which is an excellent site full of resources to study the attacks. Here's some of my best posts and other writings on the subject:

On the WTC building collapses:
Debunking the Debunkers' Free Fall Fallacies
The Physics of WTC 7
Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition
Distorted Tilt Confirmed
2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist

Responses to Debunkers:
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Freefall Speed
Debunking Joseph Nobles: 7 Problems With 7 Responses (Part 2)
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings (Part 2)
An Open Letter To Ryan Owens (Part 2)
The World Trade Center WAS a Controlled Demolition
9/11 Truth Movement RIP?
Feeding a troll
Building 7 Explained?
Why AlienEntity's Measurements Continue to Misrepresent WTC7's Fall Rate
K.T. Penn Exposed
The Reading Comprehension of Debunkers...

Articles posted on
FAQ #2: What about the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers? Wouldn’t they have disturbed the demolition devices?
FAQ #8: What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?
Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

PDF articles:
A Critical Review of the 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide
Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC

For more on why I started researching 9/11 and why I believe what I believe today, listen to my radio interview on PumpItOut Radio with researcher Jeff Hill and Debunking the Debunkers blog founder John-Michael Talboo.


I am an atheist. But I wasn't always one. Growing up I was raised a Methodist and attended church at least every other Sunday. But when I stopped going to church I began to question the claims of the religiously faithful. Part of what motivated me to start researching religion was watching the internet film Zeitgeist. The film talked about the history of religion, and showed a lot of evidence that indicated all religions, especially Christianity, appeared to be false. I wasn't sure what to think after watching the film. I then listened to what several debunkers had to say about the film, and all of them seemed to think that the movie got virtually everything wrong.

Of course I already knew that the debunkers were wrong in regards to the 9/11 section, but I wasn't sure about the religion section. I decided that I needed to look into this further. So I decided to read D.M. Murdock's book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, which I had heard was the book she had written essentially in response to the Zeitgeist debunkers. After reading her amazing book, I realized right away how the debunkers were twisting her arguments and making outright false claims. Contrary to what many believe, the arguments presented in Zeitgeist are indeed backed up by strong scholarship and primary sources. Though I have not written much on the subject of religion and atheism due to my commitment to the 9/11 Truth Movement, I plan on posting much more on the subject now that I have started this separate blog. My one major writing on religion is a paper I wrote last year in college. In it, I argue that Jesus Christ likely never existed as a historical person on earth. My paper is provided in the link below.

Again, contrary to what many believe, there is sufficient reason to believe that the figure we know as Jesus never actually existed. I also have posted from time to time on the FreeThoughNation forum under the handle "S.T.F." The forum is a great place for researching the history of Christianity, and also does a fantastic job of defending the claims made in Zeitgeist. Though my intention is certainly not to offend anyone, I do believe we need to look past all these ridiculous taboos about not questioning religion. Whether we like it or not, there is probably no God. No one created us or the universe. But that does not mean we can't live a life of happiness and fulfillment. With enough time and research, I am confident that one day humanity will see that the same spiritual fulfillment found in religion can be also be found in science, which is what actually has improved our society throughout history. But please don't just take my word for. Do the research yourself. Question everything that deserves questioning. I firmly believe that every system that can be researched and tested should be researched and tested.

If you're interested in learning about what is and isn't true about religion, in addition to the book previously mentioned, here are some other books that have helped me get to where I am now:

Also be sure to check out the links I have posted in the atheism/religion section of this site.

My goals

Over the years I have gained a deep desire to discover as much truth about the world as I can. I've devoted myself to letting the evidence take me wherever is might go, regardless of whether or not I like the truth I find. The truth really does set us free, which might be one of the only useful things the Bible has taught us.

I believe that we have not been told the full truth about what happened on September 11th, 2001. I've tried to contribute to the great work being done in the 9/11 Truth Movement as much as I can. I was at the 9/11 Truth demonstration in New York for the tenth anniversary of the attacks. Being there in New York, it was more obvious than ever that we need to have a new investigation into the attacks to find out what really happened that terrible day.

I also believe that the religions of the world have done more to cripple our progress in society than to help it. Not only does the evidence overwhelmingly indicate that there is no God, but there is simply no need for him or for religion. We can find happiness and purpose with a completely naturalistic worldview. The time has come for us to except one true reality: that from the very beginning, God has only existed in our imagination.

My goal is to spread these truths to as many as possible. I wish to educate others so that we can make this world as sustanible and enjoyable as possible. I wish to encourage others to us emprical evidence and critical thinking in establishing their worldviews. Most of all, I hope you find some amount of value in what I say and write about. Even if you disagree with me, just the fact that you have taken the time to look into these matters is an accomplishment. It is only when we learn to work together and communicate with one another that will we finally have an ideal world. But we have to take that first step. This is our world, and we all have a duty to protect it.

Friday, July 8, 2016

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is, Like, Totes Harmful Yo

Recently, the so-called "March for Marriage" took place in Washington DC; a demonstration of bigots "traditionalists" who believe their right to take away other's rights was violated with
the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage last year. And to be honest, my reaction to it was, for the first time, not anger, sadness, bemusement, or anything you might expect. Rather, my first reaction was really just the impassive thought "huh, that's still a thing?". Cause the thing is, I had completely forgotten there was even going to be one this year. Their antics have now become so pathetic that they barely register to me. And that actually feels pretty good. What also feels good is looking over the videos put out covering it. From the looks of it, the turnout was lower than last year, and I imagine it's only going to get lower as the years go on. What was once one of the most rage-inducing bigotries is now dying a slow death. And that's a good thing. 

Still, you can't help but be dismayed at the complete lack of logic these clowns exhibit when they try to make their points. Today I stumbled across one video of the event, which in the description box included an article from the group "TFP Student Action," who state on their website:
Inspired by the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, TFP volunteers are on the front lines of the culture war, working to restore the values of Christian civilization.
Aw. How inspiring. The article in question is titled "10 Reasons Why Homosexual 'Marriage' is Harmful and Must be Opposed." Ooooh, you know this is gonna be backed by just all kinds of facts. (You can't see it, but I can't even type that with a straight face.) So, lets take a look at these so-called 10 reasons and see just what kind of intellectual smack-down these folks have for us.
1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing [sic] of the spouses.
Nope, not even close to right. I have the hardest time imagining anyone who opposes gay marriage and who raises this point could possibly be any sort of historian. Marriage has had disparate definitions throughout history. Jason Colavito soundly refuted this kind of assertion last year, showing that, among other things, throughout history marriage has been largely polygamous. As he says, "virtually every form of family structure can find some support in history, so to choose among them and justify it through appeal to history is essentially picking which religion you think is the One True Faith, or which culture’s mode of expression to endorse."
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
As opposed to the traditional brand of marriage, which as we've seen was largely polyg-amous (and was abundant in the Bible as well). And leave it to Christians to commit the standard naturalistic fallacy. It's natural, therefore it's good! Funny how they never seem to use this logic for virtually everything else in their lives. And this point about the primary purpose of marriage being procreation and raising kids comes up again later, so we'll leave it for then to discuss. (Spoiler: It's as BS as the rest of their claims.)
2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.
We've already sorta covered this point above. Again, classic naturalistic fallacy. I would like any Christian to explain to me why all other unnatural things (e.g. clothing, buildings, computers, plumbing, etc.) are perfectly fine, but this one thing is worth blowing their tops over. I do in fact "perceive what is morally good and bad" for me and others around me. And I base that on a rational determination of all the available information and evidence I have to work with. Gay marriage harms no one, and bigots have never presented a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. 
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
Circumvents the purpose of sexual acts huh? I assume that "purpose" is just the baby-making and nothing but the baby-making. Except if that's the case, why am I only seeing a march for this one specific issue? Where are the marches against condoms? Blowjobs? Threesomes? No, it's only this one "violation" of natural law that Christians are so obsessed 

And a few things to consider in regards to Paul: 1) In addition to homosexuality, Paul also taught that drunkards, adulterers, and idolaters are sinners who won't make it into heaven (but slavery is ok.) Again, don't see any marches against these kinds of people. (And I would argue at least one of them made up a significant portion of the folks who took part in this march.) 2) If the natural law is "inscribed" on the heart of every person, why do so many people see nothing wrong with homosexuality? Now they might say it's the "hardened 
heartsof secular folk like me, but that doesn't explain the numerous Christian groups who openly support same-sex marriage. What's the explanation for them? Hardness of heart? Did God forget to write the law in them? I'm sure they'll have an excuse, like everything else.
3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother
It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
And yet despite this, there are no massive marches in protest against single people adopting. Jesus, this is getting absurd. What does this have to do with gay couples raising kids?
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.”
Prove it. The anti-gay crowd has been claiming things like this for decades without any hard evidence to back it up. To date there are no studies showing that children raised by gay parents are any worse off than children raised by straight couples. Even the frequently touted "Regnerus Study" was shown to actually support the idea that gay couples raise children just fine. And a wealth of peer-reviewed studies support this conclusion as well. So for those who say gay parents don't raise children as well as straight parents, I say put up or shut up.
A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
And the relevance of this is what? Even supposing that gay couples don't raise children as well as straight couples, how does this lead to the conclusion that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Christians are aware of the fact that you don't have to have kids when you're married, right? If gay couples were bad at raising children, that would, at most, be grounds for forbidding them from adopting kids and raising them. But why then would they not be allowed to get married? How does this follow?
Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.
Yes, those gay folk who put in all that time and extra effort to get a kid because they can't have one naturally are sure to make bad parents who don't have a child's best interests at heart. Look at these horrid people. But seriously, I have the sneaking suspicion the people who wrote this article are just effing creeps. 
4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
Translation: Gays and bisexuals and trans-people, oh my! What these folk refer to as a "lifestyle," I'm pretty sure gay people just refer to as a "life." No, allowing gays to marry doesn't devalue "traditional" marriage, nor does it weaken public morality. But I'm sure people like these trying to institute their own theocratic rules over society does harm society, and does so in a far worse way.
5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Yep, and it's a good thing God was ok with interracial marriage too... oh waitNever mind. Regardless of what these people think counts as a valid difference, the only "obstacle" to marriage they've cited so far is that gay people can't naturally have kids. And as we've seen, this isn't even an obstacle in the first place. 
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Again, that impossibility is that gay couples can't naturally have kids, which is irrelevant. Say it with me Christians; you don't have to have kids to get married. And what about couples who are infertile? It's "biologically impossible" for them to have children too. Should they not be allowed to get married? How about post-menopausal women? The elderly? Women with their tubes tied and men with vasectomies? The inconsistency is staggering, let me tell ya.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
Except there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is natural and that people are born that way. And there's that little fact that gay people themselves have told us they were born that way too. But hey, I guess they all must be liars. Whoda thunk it? And holy shit, are we really only half way through this thing?!
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
First of all, am I reading this correctly? Did you just refer to using contraception as "violence to nature"? Um, overreact much? Again, you seem to have missed the point that having children is optional in a marriage. Op. Tion. Al. Repeat enough times and maybe it will finally sink in. 
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
Um, yeah. And straight couples who can't naturally have children do these kinds of things too. They circumvent nature just as much when they use these exact same methods. Where's their marches, huh? And did it ever occur to you that maybe the fact that gay people are willing to go through so much extra effort to have kids might be evidence they will make great parents up for the job? The fact is that, unlike straight couples, gay couples never have accidental children. Every time they have kids, it is intentional and carefully planned. But you'll never hear bigots put it that way. All that matters to them is that it's "unnatural" (i.e. icky).
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
And what stops the State from bestowing the same benefits on gay couples who are raising kids? Oh right, you think gay people shouldn't even have kids in the first place. But they are raising kids, and they will get those same benefits too. So yeah. Basically, tough shit.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
Yes, it must just be that personal gratification those pesky gays want (which itself I guess is a bad thing all on its own too?). It couldn't possibly be all those other legal benefits (like Social Security benefits, filing joint tax returns, immigration rights, and medical coverage), which are provided by marriage and not by civil unions. Nah, that couldn't be it. 
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
Oh no, kids will learn that a totally harmless union is totally harmless and allowed? Oh the humanity! Surely kids will be scarred for life by such a thing.... Or not. Personally I think the only "children" who will be bothered by gay marriage are the adult children who wrote this article. And yeah, if you have a State job and you refuse to do that job, there's gonna be repercussions (wink wink Kim Davis). Shocking, I know.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
Yes, it's terrible that we're expecting these people to basically just grow the fuck up. Again, if you have a State job, that's how it goes. Private groups however (such as private churches) don't have to abide by any of that though. I and others have said it many times before: if you don't approve of gay marriage, fine. The solution is simple. Don't get gay married. Problem solved. It's when you try and stop others from doing that that it becomes a problem. Oh, but I forgot that it's the Christians who are the ones being oppressed. The Christians who currently make up the vast majority of the country who are being oppressed. My mistake.
9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
I have to give them some props here. It took them this long to get to the good 'ol slippery slope fallacy. I expected it to pop up way sooner. It's such a batshit crazy argument that I hardly feel like it needs a thorough rebuttal. Fortunately, John Corvino took the time and published such a rebuttal years ago. Basically, I can sum it up in one sentence: Judge and assess everything based on its own merits. There ya go. If that's too hard of a concept for these people to grasp, then they need to get back in the caves. 
The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
While I think it is a civil rights movement as well, there's no doubt it's a moral issue too. And it's morally wrong to object to such unions. So get over yourselves.
10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Again, I feel like giving them some props is in order. It's refreshing to see that they make no secret that their religious beliefs are what truly drives them. They even go as far to say that it's the most important reason. Which in a way really takes the air out of all the other reasons they've given above. It tells me that, even if the previous nine issues were soundly refuted, they wouldn't care. They would still go on being opposed to same-sex marriage just because their god doesn't like it. It's a delusion on a grand scale.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).
Sigh. I'll just set aside the fact that there's no good evidence for God's existence in the first place (really, anyone who knows me knows that's a given with me), and let's just go over what kind of god you're telling us we should be worshiping. The same god who approves of mass murder, human sacrifice, slavery (including sex slavery), suppressing free speech, and a whole host of other horrendous things, is the god we should be worshiping. And this is what these people think children should be learning about instead of consensual gay relationships. The Bible's moral teachings are anything but what we should base our society's norms on. And for the record, we're told by this same god that gays ought to be killed. But will these folk ever mention that? I think you already know the answer.
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)
No, this story doesn't say God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality. Rather, the Bible teaches that their sin was that their inhabitants were self-indulgent and callous. It never says it was because they were gay. (See further discussion in John Corvino, What's Wrong with Homosexuality?, pp. 25-31.)

And that's the end of it. Ten reasons why homosexuality is like, so totally the bane of our existence. Or not. I'm honestly not really mad about this anymore. Just tired. Oh by the great Zarquon so tired. Gay marriage has been legal nationwide for over a year now, and as far as I can tell, society is no worse for it. Yes, we still have problems with LGBTQ rights and equality, and there's still a lot of work to be done. But the consistent trend I've noticed about these problems is that none of them are actually caused by the LGBTQ community. Rather, it is their opponents who are still causing all the problems, whether they know it or not. People like the group who put out this article.

At the end of their ten (non)reasons for rejecting gay marriage, they make sure to add a lengthy disclaimer ensuring everyone that they "have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual." Furthermore, they are "filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin." Sorry, but if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then you're all still a bunch of bigots living in the Bronze Age. The so-called "struggle" these people are going through is not because they are gay. It is because of intolerant buffoons like you who constantly tell them they are sinners, when in fact they're doing nothing wrong. And despite all the efforts put out by bigots such as yourselves, your arguments are as weak as ever. But that's to be expected, since they're the same debunked arguments we've heard for years. But no matter how many times they get refuted, you guys just keep coming back for more. It's Einsteinian insanity.

Just as an aside, the lovely Cristina Rad made a video about a year ago that goes over pretty much everything I went through, and more. If you want a nice and quick rebuttal to standard anti-gay arguments like the ones I've addressed above, I highly recommend you check that out. (Not least of which because she's more articulate, more concise, and way funnier than me.)

[Quick update: Well wouldn't you know it, I tried posting my response to their website, and pretty quickly it got deleted. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. And apparently this is a pretty frequent thing they do (example, example, example). I always do forget that free speech is only allowed when you're a Christian. When will I learn?]