The Cultural Argument Against Gay Marriage
Not many years ago it was unutterable, except perhaps as a schoolyard can-you-top-this, or as urban legend. Yet it is one of the most sensational issues of our time, and an almost-impossible topic to avoid. And, from what I’m hearing, it’s not always easy for people like you and me to articulate the reasons we oppose it. It’s called “same-sex marriage.”
“I know why same-sex marriage is wrong,” I often hear, “but I’m not sure how to articulate its dangers.” Christian friends are looking for a way to relate to those who may not hold the same views, and that’s wise.
To be clear, our religious beliefs do offer legitimate reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. But if we’re to win this important debate and win hearts and minds, we must be able to articulate our convictions in culturally relevant ways.
“I know why same-sex marriage is wrong,” I often hear, “but I’m not sure how to articulate its dangers.” Christian friends are looking for a way to relate to those who may not hold the same views, and that’s wise.
To be clear, our religious beliefs do offer legitimate reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. But if we’re to win this important debate and win hearts and minds, we must be able to articulate our convictions in culturally relevant ways.
I’ve had the opportunity to take this debate into the university setting many times, this is what I hear from aggressive proponents of gay marriage:
• They’ve argued that denying them marriage is denying them the ability to have a loving commitment with another person. Frankly, that’s just not true. People love others and commit to others all the time—we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
• Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. Second, many civil rights leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”
• Others argue that it’s unfair that married couples have benefits others don’t. Well, again, there are reasons for that, and it’s tied to childrearing. But marriage is not a bundle of government benefits. It’s about something much bigger than that. If the goal is government benefits, then that should be the issue, not redefining marriage to accommodate the desires of some adults.
• More profoundly, though, one of my debate opponents has argued that moral claims must have some genuine connection with human well-being: so not just any reason is a moral reason.
I don’t disagree. In fact, the historic moral precepts of Western civilization generally—and Christianity specifically—are based on that very question: What is best for people? And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good.
In other words, it’s precisely because same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society that we oppose it.
First, though, let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do.
The issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage?
Private reasons for entering into marriage—or any other relationship for that matter—vary widely. But the public purpose has remained virtually unchanged throughout human history.
Humanity knows many different forms of relationships: close friendships, cousins, aunts and uncles, and nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters. Why is it that every society throughout human history has favored the relationship between a man and a woman who commit to one another? And why is it that this unique relationship is called “marriage,” and nothing else is?
For those answers, we can turn to anthropologists. They tell us that natural marriage—a union between a man and a woman—is humanly and historically universal. Never, until the last few milliseconds of human history, has any society had homosexual marriage.
Anthropologist Edward Westermarck, in his work The History of Human Marriage, explains that marriage:
1. has always involved men and women.
2. has existed from primitive times in all human societies.
3. always exists to serve the family. It never exists solely for individuals or for couples. (Marriage does benefit adults—often richly—but that’s not the primary reason cultures have favored marriage.)
Westermarck and other anthropologists tell us marriage has always been about the next generation.
So, on every land mass, throughout human history, marriage between a man and a woman has been the social norm. There are simply no exceptions! And in each of those societies, the public purpose has centered on the well-being of children.
Why is this universally true? Is it merely the result of broad-scale religious indoctrination? Is this a right-wing conspiracy?
Far from it. Simply put, marriage transcends religion, politics, culture, and law. Indeed, it appears that human nature requires marriage.
Reams of social science, as well as medical and psychological research, makes this case and scream “caution” in proceeding with any dramatic change regarding marriage.
An Untested Social Experiment
Remember what’s being proposed here: same-sex marriage advocates are asking all of us to commit our society and coming generations to an untested social experiment where gender—shown in the irreplaceable value of male and female—is not essential to the family.
How do we know if this will be good for children, adults, and the community? No society has ever reared a generation of children in same-sex homes, so we can’t really know how it will affect children.
Paul Nathanson, a professor at McGill University in Canada and a practicing homosexual, says that “advocates of gay marriage have made no serious attempt to consider the possible harms, and object to those who want more time to assess the evidence from other periods or other cultures.”
Nathanson is right. In fact, though humanity has not considered homosexual marriage until very recently, there is a culture we can examine for understanding this issue. Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage about 10 years ago and the impact on marriage has been devastating.
Since legalization, the out-of-wedlock birthrates and the divorce rates have risen sharply. In Sweden, the divorce rate among gay men is 50 percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher. The effect of these divorces is significant. These high rates of divorce lower cultural esteem for marriage. Worse, gay marriage separates marriage from parenting. It says that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of children. Scandinavians are buying that message, and marriage is in a steep decline, as is child well-being.
Here in the United States we have had experience with two of the things same-sex marriage advocates are asking us to consider. Specifically, a generation ago, we were asked to redefine marriage and family, at least subtly; and to believe that gender does not matter to the family.
Redefining Marriage
More than 30 years ago, Americans created “no-fault divorce” (NFD). This was a redefinition of marriage, an untested social experiment with the family, though much more subtle than what we’re being asked to consider today. The no-fault divorce experiment said marriage should only last as long as one partner wanted it to last, and implicitly said that it was almost exclusively about adult happiness, not child well-being. That was a dramatic shift in thinking, and society has paid the price.
Glenn Stanton, a sociologist and marriage expert, puts it this way: “NFD advocates told us that it was simply love, and not family structure, that made a family. And even though we didn’t have any experience with widespread divorce, NFD advocates assured us it would all work out fine.”
Thirty years of experience with millions of divorced families indicate it wasn’t such good idea.
Every major study since then—and there have been thousands—shows that the divorce experiment hurt children and adults. Badly. Worse than anyone ever imagined.
What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single-gender homes are much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble, commit suicide, and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and it’s tied to family dissolution.
Judith Wallerstein, a University of California–Berkeley professor, has studied children of divorce for 30 years. Looking back on her life’s work and the no-fault divorce experiment, she laments:
“In our rush to improve the lives of adults … we made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea of how the next generation would be affected. If the truth be told, and if we are able to face it, the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes.”
The same-sex marriage experiment follows this same path. It asks us to redefine marriage based on huge, unproven assumptions driven largely by the wishes of adults rather than the needs of children.
And, like the no-fault divorce advocates of the ’60s and ’70s, same-sex marriage advocates are telling us that parental gender does not matter for the family and for children.
Does Gender Matter?
But we don’t have to wonder how a one-gender family will impact children. We know from 40 years of experience with the explosive growth of “intentionally fatherless families.”
Thousands of conclusive social science, medical, and psychological investigations published in hundreds of professional journals have shown that: children without fathers are half as likely to do well in and graduate from school; they are more likely to require professional attention for physical or emotional problems; they are at an elevated risk for physical abuse or death; they are less likely to develop empathy for others; they are less confident; and they are more likely to spend time in jail and have children out of wedlock.
All things being equal, children raised apart from their fathers—even if that father is replaced by another loving parent figure—suffer serious declines in every important measure of well-being.
Let us be clear: A good, compassionate and just society always comes to the aid of fatherless or motherless children. But a good, compassionate, and just society never intentionally creates fatherless and motherless children.
Fathers matter as male parents, not just as a second set of unisex hands to chip in with the housework and childrearing.
Child psychologists for 40 years have been telling us how mothers and fathers parent differently, and how healthy child development demands this difference.
• Fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.”
• Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.”
• A scientific review of more than 100 published studies on the benefits of child-parent relationships found that “overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well-being and health.”
Very simply, the same-sex family is problematic because same-sex families intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father just because adults want it that way.
But this is not about the value of homosexuals as human beings. Indeed, their value is beyond dispute. They are loved by God as we all are.
But if we go the route of same-sex marriage, it means we will be subjecting our children to another state-sanctioned social experiment on the family, fueled largely by adult wishes.
The public purpose of marriage is primarily to take children from childhood to healthy adulthood. Its purpose is legitimate. It is tied to human well-being and the common good … and it thrives when men and women join together to parent children.
Any time we intentionally remove an essential part of humanity from the family—be it male or female—we have a family that will fail to function as society and children need it to. If we allow this shift to occur, we will fail our children and coming generations.
Randy Hicks is president of the Georgia Family Council, a non-profit organization that works to strengthen and defend the family in Georgia by impacting communities, shaping laws, and influencing culture. For more information, go to www.georgiafamily.org, call (770) 242-0001, or email gregg@gafam.org.
GOD'S GIFT TO MAN: The Biblical View of Marriage
It ain’t braggin’ if it’s true: Eve really was God’s gift to Man. The story in Genesis 2 is the bedrock of biblical marriage. After naming the animals and finding no suitable helper for himself, Adam encounters his newly—and perfectly—created wife, God’s gift to him. He greets her with joy and relief, uttering the first recorded human words in poetic verse:
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.”
Adam rejoices! He is no longer alone. The author of Genesis explains: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” God creates this first woman from the first man’s bone and flesh, his very body, the author reasons, so human marriage is a “one flesh” union. Those two words are central to the biblical definition of marriage.
First, he says, a marrying man is to leave his father and his mother. Although his parents have given him his very life out of themselves, and although his early attachment is to them, his primary loyalty is to be elsewhere.
Second, a married man is to cling to his wife. This is the positive complement of leaving his parents, and suggests a profound union of husband with wife, so that his primary identification in all of life is with her. The outcome? They become “one flesh.”
This is a fully shared life. Overriding even blood relationships, marriage is the most profound bond that exists between two human beings; within it nothing can be withheld.
In Genesis 2, God creates marriage when he makes the first woman out of the flesh of the first man, so that the bond of marriage reunites man and woman as “one flesh.” All other relational claims are subordinate to those of marriage. “One flesh” entails a lifelong, exclusive clinging of one man to one woman, one life fully shared. Marriage puts a barrier around the two and destroys all barriers between them; they belong fully to one another, and to one another only.
In Ephesians 5:22–33, Paul calls marriage a “mystery” that reveals Jesus Christ and the church, drawing parallels between the Christian marriage of a man and a wife and the ultimate marriage of Christ and His church. The betrothal of the Church to Christ and the union of the believer with Christ are not mere metaphors; they are the reality to which a Christian marriage points.
In Jonathan Edwards’ lofty prose: “Then the church shall be brought to the full enjoyment of her bridegroom, having all tears wiped away from her eyes; and there shall be no more distance or absence. She shall then be brought to the entertainments of an eternal wedding-feast, and to dwell forever with her bridegroom; yea, to dwell eternally in his embraces. Then Christ will give her his loves; and she shall drink her fill, yea, she shall swim in the ocean of his love.”
Inspired by and adapted from R. C. Ortlund, Jr. in The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology.
• They’ve argued that denying them marriage is denying them the ability to have a loving commitment with another person. Frankly, that’s just not true. People love others and commit to others all the time—we just don’t always call it “marriage.”
• Advocates often argue that they are being denied a civil right. There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would-be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. Second, many civil rights leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”
• Others argue that it’s unfair that married couples have benefits others don’t. Well, again, there are reasons for that, and it’s tied to childrearing. But marriage is not a bundle of government benefits. It’s about something much bigger than that. If the goal is government benefits, then that should be the issue, not redefining marriage to accommodate the desires of some adults.
• More profoundly, though, one of my debate opponents has argued that moral claims must have some genuine connection with human well-being: so not just any reason is a moral reason.
I don’t disagree. In fact, the historic moral precepts of Western civilization generally—and Christianity specifically—are based on that very question: What is best for people? And I believe that the reasons for restricting marriage are, indeed, tied to human well-being and the common good.
In other words, it’s precisely because same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society that we oppose it.
First, though, let’s be clear about what this issue is not about. This issue is not about whether homosexuals are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with dignity. They are, and they do.
The issue is about the public purpose of marriage. And, if that public purpose of marriage has served us well, can it—or should it—accommodate the desires of those espousing same-sex marriage and same-sex families as the social equivalent of natural marriage?
Private reasons for entering into marriage—or any other relationship for that matter—vary widely. But the public purpose has remained virtually unchanged throughout human history.
Humanity knows many different forms of relationships: close friendships, cousins, aunts and uncles, and nieces and nephews, brothers and sisters. Why is it that every society throughout human history has favored the relationship between a man and a woman who commit to one another? And why is it that this unique relationship is called “marriage,” and nothing else is?
For those answers, we can turn to anthropologists. They tell us that natural marriage—a union between a man and a woman—is humanly and historically universal. Never, until the last few milliseconds of human history, has any society had homosexual marriage.
Anthropologist Edward Westermarck, in his work The History of Human Marriage, explains that marriage:
1. has always involved men and women.
2. has existed from primitive times in all human societies.
3. always exists to serve the family. It never exists solely for individuals or for couples. (Marriage does benefit adults—often richly—but that’s not the primary reason cultures have favored marriage.)
Westermarck and other anthropologists tell us marriage has always been about the next generation.
So, on every land mass, throughout human history, marriage between a man and a woman has been the social norm. There are simply no exceptions! And in each of those societies, the public purpose has centered on the well-being of children.
Why is this universally true? Is it merely the result of broad-scale religious indoctrination? Is this a right-wing conspiracy?
Far from it. Simply put, marriage transcends religion, politics, culture, and law. Indeed, it appears that human nature requires marriage.
Reams of social science, as well as medical and psychological research, makes this case and scream “caution” in proceeding with any dramatic change regarding marriage.
An Untested Social Experiment
Remember what’s being proposed here: same-sex marriage advocates are asking all of us to commit our society and coming generations to an untested social experiment where gender—shown in the irreplaceable value of male and female—is not essential to the family.
How do we know if this will be good for children, adults, and the community? No society has ever reared a generation of children in same-sex homes, so we can’t really know how it will affect children.
Paul Nathanson, a professor at McGill University in Canada and a practicing homosexual, says that “advocates of gay marriage have made no serious attempt to consider the possible harms, and object to those who want more time to assess the evidence from other periods or other cultures.”
Nathanson is right. In fact, though humanity has not considered homosexual marriage until very recently, there is a culture we can examine for understanding this issue. Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage about 10 years ago and the impact on marriage has been devastating.
Since legalization, the out-of-wedlock birthrates and the divorce rates have risen sharply. In Sweden, the divorce rate among gay men is 50 percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher. The effect of these divorces is significant. These high rates of divorce lower cultural esteem for marriage. Worse, gay marriage separates marriage from parenting. It says that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of children. Scandinavians are buying that message, and marriage is in a steep decline, as is child well-being.
Here in the United States we have had experience with two of the things same-sex marriage advocates are asking us to consider. Specifically, a generation ago, we were asked to redefine marriage and family, at least subtly; and to believe that gender does not matter to the family.
Redefining Marriage
More than 30 years ago, Americans created “no-fault divorce” (NFD). This was a redefinition of marriage, an untested social experiment with the family, though much more subtle than what we’re being asked to consider today. The no-fault divorce experiment said marriage should only last as long as one partner wanted it to last, and implicitly said that it was almost exclusively about adult happiness, not child well-being. That was a dramatic shift in thinking, and society has paid the price.
Glenn Stanton, a sociologist and marriage expert, puts it this way: “NFD advocates told us that it was simply love, and not family structure, that made a family. And even though we didn’t have any experience with widespread divorce, NFD advocates assured us it would all work out fine.”
Thirty years of experience with millions of divorced families indicate it wasn’t such good idea.
Every major study since then—and there have been thousands—shows that the divorce experiment hurt children and adults. Badly. Worse than anyone ever imagined.
What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single-gender homes are much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble, commit suicide, and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and it’s tied to family dissolution.
Judith Wallerstein, a University of California–Berkeley professor, has studied children of divorce for 30 years. Looking back on her life’s work and the no-fault divorce experiment, she laments:
“In our rush to improve the lives of adults … we made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea of how the next generation would be affected. If the truth be told, and if we are able to face it, the history of divorce in our society is replete with unwarranted assumptions that adults have made about children simply because such assumptions are congenial to adult needs and wishes.”
The same-sex marriage experiment follows this same path. It asks us to redefine marriage based on huge, unproven assumptions driven largely by the wishes of adults rather than the needs of children.
And, like the no-fault divorce advocates of the ’60s and ’70s, same-sex marriage advocates are telling us that parental gender does not matter for the family and for children.
Does Gender Matter?
But we don’t have to wonder how a one-gender family will impact children. We know from 40 years of experience with the explosive growth of “intentionally fatherless families.”
Thousands of conclusive social science, medical, and psychological investigations published in hundreds of professional journals have shown that: children without fathers are half as likely to do well in and graduate from school; they are more likely to require professional attention for physical or emotional problems; they are at an elevated risk for physical abuse or death; they are less likely to develop empathy for others; they are less confident; and they are more likely to spend time in jail and have children out of wedlock.
All things being equal, children raised apart from their fathers—even if that father is replaced by another loving parent figure—suffer serious declines in every important measure of well-being.
Let us be clear: A good, compassionate and just society always comes to the aid of fatherless or motherless children. But a good, compassionate, and just society never intentionally creates fatherless and motherless children.
Fathers matter as male parents, not just as a second set of unisex hands to chip in with the housework and childrearing.
Child psychologists for 40 years have been telling us how mothers and fathers parent differently, and how healthy child development demands this difference.
• Fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.”
• Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.”
• A scientific review of more than 100 published studies on the benefits of child-parent relationships found that “overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well-being and health.”
Very simply, the same-sex family is problematic because same-sex families intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father just because adults want it that way.
But this is not about the value of homosexuals as human beings. Indeed, their value is beyond dispute. They are loved by God as we all are.
But if we go the route of same-sex marriage, it means we will be subjecting our children to another state-sanctioned social experiment on the family, fueled largely by adult wishes.
The public purpose of marriage is primarily to take children from childhood to healthy adulthood. Its purpose is legitimate. It is tied to human well-being and the common good … and it thrives when men and women join together to parent children.
Any time we intentionally remove an essential part of humanity from the family—be it male or female—we have a family that will fail to function as society and children need it to. If we allow this shift to occur, we will fail our children and coming generations.
Randy Hicks is president of the Georgia Family Council, a non-profit organization that works to strengthen and defend the family in Georgia by impacting communities, shaping laws, and influencing culture. For more information, go to www.georgiafamily.org, call (770) 242-0001, or email gregg@gafam.org.
GOD'S GIFT TO MAN: The Biblical View of Marriage
It ain’t braggin’ if it’s true: Eve really was God’s gift to Man. The story in Genesis 2 is the bedrock of biblical marriage. After naming the animals and finding no suitable helper for himself, Adam encounters his newly—and perfectly—created wife, God’s gift to him. He greets her with joy and relief, uttering the first recorded human words in poetic verse:
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.”
Adam rejoices! He is no longer alone. The author of Genesis explains: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” God creates this first woman from the first man’s bone and flesh, his very body, the author reasons, so human marriage is a “one flesh” union. Those two words are central to the biblical definition of marriage.
First, he says, a marrying man is to leave his father and his mother. Although his parents have given him his very life out of themselves, and although his early attachment is to them, his primary loyalty is to be elsewhere.
Second, a married man is to cling to his wife. This is the positive complement of leaving his parents, and suggests a profound union of husband with wife, so that his primary identification in all of life is with her. The outcome? They become “one flesh.”
This is a fully shared life. Overriding even blood relationships, marriage is the most profound bond that exists between two human beings; within it nothing can be withheld.
In Genesis 2, God creates marriage when he makes the first woman out of the flesh of the first man, so that the bond of marriage reunites man and woman as “one flesh.” All other relational claims are subordinate to those of marriage. “One flesh” entails a lifelong, exclusive clinging of one man to one woman, one life fully shared. Marriage puts a barrier around the two and destroys all barriers between them; they belong fully to one another, and to one another only.
In Ephesians 5:22–33, Paul calls marriage a “mystery” that reveals Jesus Christ and the church, drawing parallels between the Christian marriage of a man and a wife and the ultimate marriage of Christ and His church. The betrothal of the Church to Christ and the union of the believer with Christ are not mere metaphors; they are the reality to which a Christian marriage points.
In Jonathan Edwards’ lofty prose: “Then the church shall be brought to the full enjoyment of her bridegroom, having all tears wiped away from her eyes; and there shall be no more distance or absence. She shall then be brought to the entertainments of an eternal wedding-feast, and to dwell forever with her bridegroom; yea, to dwell eternally in his embraces. Then Christ will give her his loves; and she shall drink her fill, yea, she shall swim in the ocean of his love.”
Inspired by and adapted from R. C. Ortlund, Jr. in The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology.
Comments
Konfu Kitty
California
Thanks...I Am Using Your Arguments About Gay Marriage In My Senior Paper...This Helped Alot
Anne
CA
This article successfully danced around the issues and failed to convince me of your viewpoint. I really did try to understand why people have such a problem with gay marriage, but all I got was a bunch of fluff.
Colin
Los Angeles
While I understand the reason that one would be concerned about the children in a same-sex marriage, one must understand that what information exists about the success of raising children in a same-sex home suggests that it is just as successful as in an opposite-sex home. The statistics are scarce on the issue at this point, but there does not appear to be a correlation similar to that of a single parent.
As to the position of legalization of gay marriage being a social experiment with no basis to believe in its likelihood of success, I have no better example to cite than the United States of America. People said that the idea of full self-governance was crazy, but 232 years later it seems to have worked fairly well.
It is unfortunate the way this discussion is often framed, by both sides. As a gay man tentatively allowed to marry in California, I can tell you that a lot of the resistance we have faced is not based on rational arguments, but rather on hate and anger. Though I disagree with your positions, I applaud you for taking a much more calm approach to the topic.
As to the position of legalization of gay marriage being a social experiment with no basis to believe in its likelihood of success, I have no better example to cite than the United States of America. People said that the idea of full self-governance was crazy, but 232 years later it seems to have worked fairly well.
It is unfortunate the way this discussion is often framed, by both sides. As a gay man tentatively allowed to marry in California, I can tell you that a lot of the resistance we have faced is not based on rational arguments, but rather on hate and anger. Though I disagree with your positions, I applaud you for taking a much more calm approach to the topic.
Joseph
Texas
This article speaks directly to the heart of what I have thought and believed but have never been able to articulate. Awesome article.
Dennis
Wow... I believe this is the ONLY article that I have read that offers a legitimate argument against gay marriage that is not based in bigotry.
I really felt that you argument was compelling and well-articulated. I also beleve that the instituion of marriage is crumbling.
By arguing that marriage exists for the children's sake, you really make it ahrd to argue against...
However, there is still a fundaental flaw with your argument that gay-marriage advocates wil expliot.
1.) There is no solid proof that children raised by gay couples will suffer emotional problems. I mean duh, they'll probably get teased at school, but that sees to be more because of the cutural stigmatism against gays...
2.) You also can't prove that any development problems of the child is due to the lack of a father/mother figure. Yes, children from single parent households due have more problems... but I believe that's more due to the fct that the parental figure is just missing from the child's life. since single parents have to work all the time to support their family... they dont eallyhave as much time to invest in their child's development while a couple raisng a kid can balance everything.
Finally, isn't it more important for orphans and unwanted children to have the love of parents? I mean, isn't it better for them to experience parental love from two people of the same sex than no parental love at all? Growing up in a gay family has to be better than growing up in a foster home or growing up on the streets.
But then again, I guess people can still adopt kids without getting married, right?
I really felt that you argument was compelling and well-articulated. I also beleve that the instituion of marriage is crumbling.
By arguing that marriage exists for the children's sake, you really make it ahrd to argue against...
However, there is still a fundaental flaw with your argument that gay-marriage advocates wil expliot.
1.) There is no solid proof that children raised by gay couples will suffer emotional problems. I mean duh, they'll probably get teased at school, but that sees to be more because of the cutural stigmatism against gays...
2.) You also can't prove that any development problems of the child is due to the lack of a father/mother figure. Yes, children from single parent households due have more problems... but I believe that's more due to the fct that the parental figure is just missing from the child's life. since single parents have to work all the time to support their family... they dont eallyhave as much time to invest in their child's development while a couple raisng a kid can balance everything.
Finally, isn't it more important for orphans and unwanted children to have the love of parents? I mean, isn't it better for them to experience parental love from two people of the same sex than no parental love at all? Growing up in a gay family has to be better than growing up in a foster home or growing up on the streets.
But then again, I guess people can still adopt kids without getting married, right?
Caitlin Duncan
California
Along with Colin and Dennis, I have to say that this argument is framed very well. Unlike the presentation of similar opinions I've heard and read, this argument is based on your intent to strengthen and defend the institution of marriage as opposed to vilifying and attacking the gay community. For that, I thank you for demonstrating that there is an honorable way to communicate a difference in belief.
I agree that marriage and the family do need to be strengthened. I believe that strong families can provide a compass for generations, a map that young people can use as reference to choose what is right based on values learned in the home. I do, however, disagree with other points, namely the one pertaining to civil rights.
True, the histories of the homosexual and the person of color are different. In the United States there has been a very visible line by which to trace the oppression of and prejudice against the Black community. This history is one that all Americans must acknowledge and vow to learn from.
Even so, while there was no massive slave trade involving the gay community, there has been a history of civil rights abuses against that community. With my respects to the Reverend Jackson, I would reply that if the gay community has suffered less, that it may be largely because not every homosexual can be "sighted" as obviously gay. But I do know that in WWII's Europe, along with Jews, the disabled, Poles, and Gypsies, thousands of gay men were cruelly experimented on and exterminated in concentration camps. In this country, gays have been lynched, experienced police brutality, been the targets of hate speech, and been discriminated against in health care and in the work force: all of these are injustices experienced by other minority groups that have also called out for delivery of their civil rights.
And I would ask any who read this to consider the civil right of an adult citizen to contract; an important right that was also denied the Black community for so long. Because, more than a personal covenant between two adults, in the eyes of the State marriage is also a legally binding contract. Moral codes aside, I stand by the law in saying that all should be afforded every civil right or else, who is safe from exclusion?
In the spiritual realm it is surely up to religious leaders to decide whatever they will about the kinds of marriages allowed among their adherents. I will not criticize a church's protest to gay marriage within its walls. I will always defend one's right to moral ideals and religious convictions within their church and family life. But when it comes to law-making I believe in equality in the eyes of the Law, and I would hate to see the concept of Free Will pushed aside in favor of laws that would morally regulate behavior, forcing people to make right choices without knowing why, without being able to see the morality of one path over another.
Finally, instead of making new laws to exclude people whose behaviors we fear would damage society as a whole, I would urge every mother and father, raise your children well. Make them strong in faith and understanding. Start with your own home to build a community and a society that is so strong that you need not fear giving full rights to every citizen in it.
I agree that marriage and the family do need to be strengthened. I believe that strong families can provide a compass for generations, a map that young people can use as reference to choose what is right based on values learned in the home. I do, however, disagree with other points, namely the one pertaining to civil rights.
True, the histories of the homosexual and the person of color are different. In the United States there has been a very visible line by which to trace the oppression of and prejudice against the Black community. This history is one that all Americans must acknowledge and vow to learn from.
Even so, while there was no massive slave trade involving the gay community, there has been a history of civil rights abuses against that community. With my respects to the Reverend Jackson, I would reply that if the gay community has suffered less, that it may be largely because not every homosexual can be "sighted" as obviously gay. But I do know that in WWII's Europe, along with Jews, the disabled, Poles, and Gypsies, thousands of gay men were cruelly experimented on and exterminated in concentration camps. In this country, gays have been lynched, experienced police brutality, been the targets of hate speech, and been discriminated against in health care and in the work force: all of these are injustices experienced by other minority groups that have also called out for delivery of their civil rights.
And I would ask any who read this to consider the civil right of an adult citizen to contract; an important right that was also denied the Black community for so long. Because, more than a personal covenant between two adults, in the eyes of the State marriage is also a legally binding contract. Moral codes aside, I stand by the law in saying that all should be afforded every civil right or else, who is safe from exclusion?
In the spiritual realm it is surely up to religious leaders to decide whatever they will about the kinds of marriages allowed among their adherents. I will not criticize a church's protest to gay marriage within its walls. I will always defend one's right to moral ideals and religious convictions within their church and family life. But when it comes to law-making I believe in equality in the eyes of the Law, and I would hate to see the concept of Free Will pushed aside in favor of laws that would morally regulate behavior, forcing people to make right choices without knowing why, without being able to see the morality of one path over another.
Finally, instead of making new laws to exclude people whose behaviors we fear would damage society as a whole, I would urge every mother and father, raise your children well. Make them strong in faith and understanding. Start with your own home to build a community and a society that is so strong that you need not fear giving full rights to every citizen in it.
Stacy
California
But if California makes same-sex marriage legal,the schools will be required to start teaching children at age 5 that homosexual marriage is okay. Isn't that for parents to decide? That takes away a certain freedom of religious beliefs. Churches will also be able to be sued for not allowing same-sex weddings in their chapels. In Canada where they have legalized it, churches have lost tax-exempt status for only preaching that homosexuality was wrong. In Massachusetts, the Catholic church had to close down their adoption services because otherwise they were going to be forced to place their children in homes with homosexual parents. Gays have the same legal and financial rights already under civil unions. But actually making it legal will surely take away the rights to freely believe in right and wrong concerning this matter.
Debbie
Utah
Marriage is a right and it is offered to ALL human beings! it has already been defined since the beginning of time and now we only want to uphold that right! I can't believe we are even having this discussion!!!! MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman. It always has been! If two men or two women want play at marriage, then give it a different name but don't try to put it under the sacred title of Marriage!
Michael Clark
Currently in Utah.
I find myself surprised by your argument on the basis of freedom to contract, and of free will.
First off -- in no way are the members of the homosexual community denied the right to contract, as was the black community. Nor can they be prevented from entering into a marriage-like contract at will. The issue, as you said, is free will. The power to decide lies in the hands of the voters -- the decision regarding if the government should _ratify_ this contract which has been made. The right to form contracts has not been denied. The right to choose is upheld -- for _both_ parties.
First off -- in no way are the members of the homosexual community denied the right to contract, as was the black community. Nor can they be prevented from entering into a marriage-like contract at will. The issue, as you said, is free will. The power to decide lies in the hands of the voters -- the decision regarding if the government should _ratify_ this contract which has been made. The right to form contracts has not been denied. The right to choose is upheld -- for _both_ parties.
Ken
Pennsylvania
I enjoyed reading a rational, articulate opposition to gay marriage that did not rely on bias and bigotry. However, the article failed on one enormous point:
You fail to quantify statements that there is correlation between single-sex parents and degenerate children. Studies? Citations? Show me some evidence for your claims.
You fail to quantify statements that there is correlation between single-sex parents and degenerate children. Studies? Citations? Show me some evidence for your claims.
Bravo! This article voices many of the concerns people have for allowing gay "marriages" and the impact such unions will have on society. I believe too many people oversimplify the issue by only thinking about the homosexuals who want to get "married" and fail to consider the impact gay "marriage" will have on children.
Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and friends of homosexuals must make their decisions on this issue not based on the desires of adults, but on the needs of children. Well done.
Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and friends of homosexuals must make their decisions on this issue not based on the desires of adults, but on the needs of children. Well done.
Holly
Indiana
Thank you for being unapologetic and thorough with your argument. The issue is not about being against homosexuals as human beings worthy of dignity and respect (for they certainly are), or even really about whether one believes in the morality of homosexual relationships. This is about the family, what our society--and every society--is founded on. The success of the family, with a father and mother at the head, is what leads to success in every other aspect of a happy life. Children have a right to a father and a mother both, and because they don't have a choice in the matter, the responsibility--and accountability--falls to the rest of us.
Adults must work with children in mind. Too often today, men and women are more concerned with their own happiness than the wellbeing of children. It seems all too apparent that, little by little, the family unit is deteriorating. It is scorned and belittled, and we are suffering the consequences. If we continue to allow it to suffer, if we try to redefine the natural family as supported by nature and God, things will only get worse. That is why I cannot support homosexual marriage. I support the family.
Thank you for the article.
Adults must work with children in mind. Too often today, men and women are more concerned with their own happiness than the wellbeing of children. It seems all too apparent that, little by little, the family unit is deteriorating. It is scorned and belittled, and we are suffering the consequences. If we continue to allow it to suffer, if we try to redefine the natural family as supported by nature and God, things will only get worse. That is why I cannot support homosexual marriage. I support the family.
Thank you for the article.
Emma Merrell
California
"• Others argue that it’s unfair that married couples have benefits others don’t....But marriage is not a bundle of government benefits...."
Which is really the only reason that being married has any benefits over domestic partnerships. Legally re-defining marriage can't help that. The California government treats domestic partnerships the same:
California Family Code section 297.5. (a) states the following:
"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the sameresponsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
Which is really the only reason that being married has any benefits over domestic partnerships. Legally re-defining marriage can't help that. The California government treats domestic partnerships the same:
California Family Code section 297.5. (a) states the following:
"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the sameresponsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."
Jesse
Los Angeles
Reading this has actually made me rethink the issue of gay marriage. I was kind of faced with the fact that when a set of consice rational arguements are layed out it really boils down to baseless assumptions of gender and tradition. How can I accept that something should be legal just because it has never before been incorporated into a society's laws before? Why should I assume that a child is "denied a parent" based on very Western gender roles (please read some more anthropology-- fathers and mothers are defined in a NUMBER of ways)? Why should I accept that a low divorce rate is better when historically, this was indicative of oppressing women? True, the divorce statistics you cited from Sweden are very likely not linked to that form of discrimination, but I'm suspicious of your sources for these statistics...As disappointed as I was in the lack of "meat" I expected to find, I am actually really glad I read this piece.
Leave a Comment
Subscribe here to get full access to the latest articles and best resources
Chris
CA
James
NY