By Wintrey Knight:
Note: this post has a twin! Its companion post on a secular case against abortion rights is here.
Roxeanne de Luca challenged socially conservative bloggers to write a non-religious case against same-sex marriage, so here’s mine.
I can’t possible cover everything, but I will make three arguments.
Same-sex marriage is bad for children
Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business
Same-sex marriage is bad for public health
Let’s look at these in order.
1. SSM is bad for children
Traditional marriage is beneficial for children for 4 reasons:
traditional marriages last longer than same-sex unions
traditional marriages are more peaceful than same-sex unions
traditional marriages offer children male and female influences
traditional marriages model life-long love between men and women
Space permits me to only discuss the first two, using this paper from the Family Research Council.
That research paper compares same-sex couples and heterosexual married couples, in the following ways:
relationship duration
monogamy vs. promiscuity
relationship commitment
number of children being raised
health risks
rates of intimate partner violence
It turns out that same-sex unions are not as good for children as traditional marriage, on those measures.
Relationship duration
Claim: about 58% of traditional marriages last longer than 20 years.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
Claim: about 5% of same-sex unions last longer than 20 years.
Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
Monogamy vs Promiscuity
Claim: 85% of married women and 75.5% of married men report being faithful to their spouses. For homosexual males, the number is 4.5%
Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.
Rates of intimate partner violence
Married men and women experience significantly less intimate partner violence than do homosexual men and women.
Sources: “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,” U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: 30; “Intimate Partner Violence,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report:11.
There is a lot more evidence cited in the research paper. Read the whole thing.
Consider this article by Dr. Trayce Hansen about which family configuration is best for children. The title is “Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children”.
Excerpt:
Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.(5)
Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited (6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.(6) Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, (10) attempt suicide, (11) experience domestic violence and sexual assault, (12) and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.(13,14,15)
It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves (16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.(18,19,20,21)
The rest of the article, with references, is here.
Research from the Heritage Foundation shows that traditional marriage is the safest place for women and children – women and children are much less likely to be the victims of domestic violence or violent crime when they are in a married home. Another Heritage Foundation research paper shows that child poverty is greatly reduced when children grow up in a married home.
So what do we learn from this? The evidence is clear: traditional marriage is better for children than same-sex marriage.
2. SSM is bad for civil society and business
SSM will increase the power of the state to regulate civil society and business. Let me quickly summarize the evidence for this to give you an idea how it would work, using Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse’s testimony to the Rhode Island legislature.
Excerpt:
Far from limiting the power of the state, your version of equality has become a tool for the hostile takeover of civil society by the state. Churches are already under attack for daring to dissent from the new state-imposed Orthodoxy that marriage is whatever the government says it is.7
Parents are losing the right to direct the education of their own children.8 Foster parents in the UK must submit to the state’s views about marriage.9 Reputable adoption agencies have been put out of business.
And the pettiness of some of the complaints brought by same sex couples is simply staggering. Christian bed and breakfast owners have been sued for not allowing unmarried couples to stay in double rooms. They would have gladly rented them separate rooms, but that was not good enough for the thought police.10 Same sex couples have brought legal complaints against wedding photographers, as if there were a constitutional right to have your picture taken by the person of your choice.11
The details of the events she is describing can be found in the references for her speech.
Here are a few more examples of this infringement on civil society and business:
Gay manager at Cisco Systems gets Dr. Frank Turek fired
Law firm that agreed to defend marriage pressured by gay groups
California Democrats mandate gay history in public schools
Brown University students attack pro-marriage sign at demonstration
Queen’s University feminist professor says that polygamy should be permitted
Christianity under fire from secular governments in San Francisco and Quebec
Christians forced to perform same-sex marriages
UK Equalities Minister introduces law allowing gays to marry in churches
Christian business owners found guilty for disagreeing with homosexuality
Belgian archbishop targeted by gay activists over AIDS remarks
Christian couple barred from having foster children
Christian student loses case with Eastern Michigan University
Ireland considers bill to criminalize dissent from same-sex civil unions
Catholic Charities closes adoption agency due to same-sex marriage law
The persecution of a Catholic Bishop (at Blazing Cat Fur)
The persecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin (at Ezra Levant)
The persecution of Catholic Insight magazine (at Ezra Levant)
The persecution of Christian businessman Scott Brockie (at The Interim)
Notice how same-sex marriage impacts businesses, clergy, non-profits, etc. and even leads to polygamy. Once you decide that marriage is not about putting guidelines around sex and producing and nurturing the next generation, but about letting consenting adults do whatever they want, then there are no rules.
Now consider this article about how the breakdown of marriage changes society and government, written by Dr. Frank Turek.
Excerpt:
The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.
So what? People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.
Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland,the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.
Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes,“When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.
You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse? You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs taxpayers $112 billion per year!).
No-fault divorce laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country. Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage. There’s no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage.
So there are financial and social costs to the breakdown of marriage. The more government has to spend to deal with the problems SSM creates, the higher taxes will go, and the less money is left in the hands of working families to accomplish their own plans.
To be fair, I think that sex education and no-fault divorce are worse threats to marriage than same-sex marriage. I would like to see more research to persuade people that chastity before marriage is important, like this research , so that we could see our way clear to push for policies that encourage young people to wait longer before having sex. And I would like to see other measures taken to strengthen marriage from no-fault divorce, such as a shared parenting laws. But SSM is the current topic, so I’ll stick with that here.
3. SSM is bad for public health
Now we come to the sensitive part. We should not be encouraging SSM because it normalizes homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle is associated with harmful behaviors.
Consider this recent Centers for Disease Control study. Life Site News discusses the findings in this article.
Excerpt:
Students who report being gay or bisexual are more likely than heterosexual students to engage in unhealthy risk behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use, sexual risk behaviors, suicidal behaviors, and violence, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The study reported: “the prevalence among gay or lesbian students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 63.8% of all the risk behaviors measured, and the prevalence among bisexual students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 76.0% of all the risk behaviors measured.”
Specifically, gay or lesbian students had higher rates for seven of the 10 health risk categories (behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, and weight management).
The study also found that only 1.3% of students self-identified as gay or lesbian at the eight sites where they were asked their “sexual identity.” A median of 3.7% said they were bisexual.
Researchers analyzed data from Youth Risk Behavior Surveys conducted during 2001–2009 in seven states and six large urban school districts. These sites collected data on high school students’ sexual identity (heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual, or unsure), sex of sexual contacts (sexual contact with the opposite sex only, with the same sex only, or with both sexes), or both.
The study, “Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9–12 in Selected Sites—Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, United States, 2001–2009,” was published as a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summary.
Dr. Trayce Hansen summarizes some of the previously published research on the health care effects of the gay lifestyle.
Excerpt:
Non-heterosexual behavior leads to increased risk of psychological and physical disorders
Sadly, the research is also clear that individuals who adopt non-heterosexual lifestyles are more likely to suffer from a host of negative outcomes including psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts, domestic violence and sexual assault, and increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened lifespan. Schools should not affirm and thereby encourage young people to adopt lifestyles more likely to lead to such devastation. (To review these specific studies see references 5-10 below).
The footnotes she mentions are in the original article. That article also debunks the “gay gene” myth using identical twin studies, which show that only 10-11% of identical twins have the same sexual orientation.
Consider how society treats the practice of cigarette smoking. Certainly, we don’t want to coerce people into not smoking – we want them to have the choice. But we should definitely not lie to people about the health effects of smoking. It does no good to tell people that dangerous things are not really dangerous. I would rather hurt someone’s feelings gently by telling them the truth than see them suffer real harm after telling them lies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have seen three reasons why we should not legalize same-sex marriage:
Same-sex marriage is bad for children
Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business
Same-sex marriage is bad for public health
Notice that there are no arguments in this post that require a religious worldview or belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.
Further study
For a more academic case against SSM, see this peer-reviewed paper on traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, authored by two guys from Princeton University and one guy from the University of Notredame. One of those guys is the famous Robert P. George. For some simple, practical tips on defending traditional marriage, check out this tip sheet from the National Organization for Marriage.
You can also watch the videos from a formal academic debate on same-sex marriage held at the University of Central Florida, featuring Dr. Michael Brown. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse also debated same-sex marriage at Columbia University in a formal academic debate. You can see her give a lecture on same-sex marriage at Houston Baptist University here, as well.
Share this:
38 Responses
Stan says:
06/27/2011 at 5:34 PM
Look, you may CALL it a “non-religious case”, but face it. The ONLY reason anyone would be against the concept is if they are a bigoted, hating, homophobe. I mean, sure, there’s all that research and logic and all, but it must REALLY be hate on your part … right?
[end sarcasm]
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/27/2011 at 9:00 PM
Ha ha ha! I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad, just stating the facts.
REPLY
Jonathan H says:
06/27/2011 at 11:41 PM
Stan… Respectfully, what do you mean by homophobe? If you mean anyone who disagrees with individuals who pursue intimate and romantic same-sex relationships then you are homophobic-phobic since you disagree with the individual who disagrees with same sex relationships. Now, if you mean phobia in a way that means being scared then I agree that no one should be afraid of any human person(LGBTQ Community) who has just as much value as anyone else. But if that is what you mean by that Wintry is scared of anyone in the LGBTQ community I think there is a misunderstanding as I did not sense any fear in his case.
Now, Wintry knight can come to a objective conclusion about SSM despite his religious affiliation. To say he cannot and denouncing the evidence he has presented for traditional marriage between one man and one woman then you have committed the Genetic Fallacy. This fallacy means you did not look at the evidence at all but simply dismissed it as in error based on Wintry’s worldview. Any individual in the LGBTQ community can reach a objective conclusion on same sex marriage. Any person who denounces there claims as being error because they are gay is committing the Genetic Fallacy as well. To counter their claims would have to be based on the facts not the person behind it. The best your comments can assert are your own subjective opinion which you are entitled too but that is as far as it goes.
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/27/2011 at 11:43 PM
Oh he was kidding! He was just being sarcastic and anticipating the response from the other side!
REPLY
Stan says:
06/28/2011 at 10:38 AM
Just for clarification — and Wintery has already said it — I was kidding. My “response” is the response you can expect. “Don’t worry about logic. Forget about studies. Don’t even think about reality. If we want to do it, you are obligated to support us or you are a mean, bigoted person. Opposing what we want to do can only be motivated by hate.” My comment was, in other words, a congratulations to Wintery for reason over stupidity.
REPLY
David Andrews says:
03/17/2012 at 5:27 AM
You call it hate…I call it disapproval..and disapproval does not equate to hate.
When homosexuals label those that disapprove- not of homosexuals themselves- but of homosexual behaviour, then they are quick to label them as some kind of bad person…..that is unfair and is a quick way to bringing discussion and debate to a close……
I am not a homophobe, but I am entitled to defendable freedom of speech. I do not agree with homosexual behaviour and research so far does not support fully the notion that people are born gay.
As a social researcher I have come across volumes of research that would challenge the validity of promoting homosexuality in terms of health, sexual promiscuity, indoctrinating children concerning queer sexuality…
Homosexuality is not in any way equal to heterosexuality, however those in power today blindly strive to apply equality to a minute community (1%) identifiable by their sexual practices alone; a sexuality that carries a completely different set of social outcomes.
Society expects us to “Tolerate” a variety of circumstances and situations…..however “Tolerance” does not spell approval.
REPLY
Glenn E. Chatfield says:
06/27/2011 at 8:15 PM
Well done, W.K. Good collection of resources, too. This is a keeper!
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/27/2011 at 8:46 PM
Thank you! I was up till 4 AM last night working on it.
REPLY
IFTYS says:
06/29/2011 at 3:42 PM
If only the folks in New York would have done a little investigation, maybe, just maybe, they may not have passed the gay mariage ammendment.
REPLY
Jape Jackanapes says:
06/27/2011 at 8:55 PM
SSM is bad for liberty. Think of the entailments of forcing a sexual orientation as a civil right. I don’t even recognize heterosexuality as a constitutional right. And once the identity politics of the lgbt agenda is made law where then do you draw the line? Does NAMBLA have a case as an oppressed group with an alleged immutable orientation?
God gives us an identity but that does not mean that some can not adopt a false identity then try to make moral arguments about hatred, bigotry, and acceptance.
Even the secular idea that monogamous life time relationships are a privilege that is granted only to a limited and defined group for eligibility speaks to Marriage not being open to all types of unions.
REPLY
Neil says:
06/27/2011 at 8:58 PM
Very, very well done. You saved me a lot of time. I’m just going to link to this instead of making my own.
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/28/2011 at 10:55 PM
Thank you Neil! Be sure and check out Jim Wallace’s post as well below.
REPLY
Ryan K. says:
06/27/2011 at 10:25 PM
The most obvious reason is that marriage by definition means a man and a woman. Two people of the same sex is a different type of union than two people of the opposite sex.
This is so obvious that even a kid can understand it. Two men is different than a man and a woman, so by definition is the type of relationship and union that they will have.
Saying gay marriage is like saying, “male sorority,” or “woman fraternity.” By definition it just does not work.
REPLY
Roxeanne de Luca says:
06/27/2011 at 11:31 PM
BRAVO!
Thank you for answering the call.
One of my friends (Tieki, in fact) went to a so-con seminar and learned about the reasons to not have SSM. As she said, “There’s actually reasons!”. Those aren’t articulated very frequently, or as publicly, and that leads us vulnerable to charges of bigotry.
What I don’t want to have happen is for us to be behind the 8 ball like “we” were with Roe and abortion. I have this dream of every social conservative being able to articulate a secular, logical argument for their beliefs, so that we aren’t trying to make that argument after things have gone drastically wrong (more wrong than they are now). Face it, once SSM is in, it’ll take a Constitutional Amendment to get it out.
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/27/2011 at 11:38 PM
I agree. When I wrote this, I had Frank Turek in mind. I want Frank to be able to have a job, not to get fired for his beliefs. That means that we need to have a culture that welcomes his view on marriage. Either we get more people to articulate the reasons for marriage or we are done for. I would especially like to have Protestant evangelicals like myself step up to the plate.
REPLY
Rumpole says:
06/28/2011 at 8:18 AM
Were you aware that the United Nations just declared that Internet Access is now a Human Right? Extraordinary.
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/28/2011 at 10:11 AM
I was aware! I’m sure this is going to cost me more money.
REPLY
Rich Bordner says:
06/28/2011 at 9:03 AM
Good stuff, WK.
REPLY
desmognathus says:
06/28/2011 at 12:50 PM
Great job, Wintery!
REPLY
Jim says:
06/28/2011 at 12:57 PM
Here is my article from two years ago in an attempt to do the same thing:
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Should_Government_Legalize_Same_Sex_Marriage
I focused on the impact it has on the next generation and developed the acronym KIDS to help communicate the issue…
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/28/2011 at 1:14 PM
I will blog on this later in the week.
REPLY
Jennifer Roback Morse says:
06/28/2011 at 2:40 PM
the reason there are so many arguements in favor of Marriage Without Adjectives (that is, just ordinary man/woman marriage) is that marriage touches so many aspects of human life and society. redefining marriage will change many, many things, including the definition of parenthood itself.
dr j
REPLY
John Doe says:
06/28/2011 at 4:49 PM
Oh NOES, Ms. de Luca, the leftists did not really want a sincere and well–reasoned response. In fact, “shut up” they said, and let them make their arguements without serious objection.
REPLY
Ruth Institute Blog » A secular case against gay marriage says:
06/28/2011 at 5:20 PM
[...] Keep reading. Spread the word: [...]
REPLY
A secular case against gay marriage (via Wintery Knight) « That Mr. G Guy's Blog says:
06/28/2011 at 9:10 PM
[...] Roxeanne de Luca challenged socially conservative bloggers to write a non-religious case against same-sex marriage, so here's mine. I can't possible cover everything, but I will make three arguments. Same-sex marriage is bad for children Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business Same-sex marriage is bad for public health Let's look at these in order. 1. SSM is bad for children Traditional marriage is beneficial for children for 4 re … Read More [...]
REPLY
thatmrgguy says:
06/28/2011 at 9:15 PM
Compelling and articulate article. Thanks for doing the research a lot of us don’t have the time or the inclination to do.
I linked here from Haemet and have added you to my blogroll.
Mike G.
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
06/28/2011 at 9:21 PM
Thank you, Mr. G. Added you as well.
REPLY
A secular case against “same-sex marriage” « Eternity Matters says:
06/29/2011 at 12:17 PM
[...] points here, but the good news is that the Wintery Knight did a more thorough and masterful job in A secular case against gay marriage. I highly encourage you to read and bookmark it. The case against oxymoronic “same-sex [...]
REPLY
Retha says:
07/01/2011 at 11:02 AM
Great article, Wintery. I was divided about the issue – could see the point in arguments from both sides – until I read this.
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
07/01/2011 at 11:20 AM
Thank you for reading, and for the encouragement!
REPLY
Crystal Hayward says:
07/02/2011 at 10:09 PM
I never though of it this way…you make excellent points/FACTS without using religion..think I might REPOST this (on m FB page) if that’s ok with you? Cheers!!
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
07/02/2011 at 10:52 PM
Yes it is OK with me!
REPLY
Michael says:
07/06/2011 at 6:30 AM
Excellent stuff, wK!!
Btw I’ve just set up a blog, and I have added you onto my blogroll. Soon I hope to start blogging through Grudem’s PATTB which you bought me. :)
Eternally grateful,
Michael! =D
REPLY
THE HORTON JOURNAL A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE says:
11/25/2011 at 9:59 AM
A most impressive study. I agree, this one is a keeper. Congratulations WK.
REPLY
Rodney Patrick says:
11/29/2011 at 7:37 PM
Thank you Wintery Knight, When SSM laws were passed by more states, I thought about what impact this was doing to my children and how they will view this issue. SSM goes against everything I was taught and the way I teach my children. I will never teach my children that SSM is good for them, because there is so more things wrong in SSM. They are our future and I want to give them the best opportunity I can.
REPLY
Daniel Pop says:
02/02/2012 at 6:25 AM
Wintery Knight, do you mind me posting this on my facebook?
Blessings.
REPLY
Wintery Knight says:
02/02/2012 at 9:36 AM
Not at all, please do post it on Facebook.
REPLY
lhf says:
02/28/2012 at 8:14 AM
An important point not raised is the slippery slope. If marriages between 2 men are legalized, why not 3? In the Netherlands, home of the first legalized same sex marriages, a threesome has been permitted to marry (a man and two women – is that polygamy?)
Let’s take another example. Hypothetically, I have worked all my life, have saved my money and have never married. My sister also has never married, but has not worked steadily and has not saved. At age 65 I retire and I wish to ensure that the survivor benefit of my pension goes to my sister. Can I marry her? If not, why not? Is it not a violation of her and my civil rights not to be able to marry? Should the reason we want to marry be considered? What if we were brother and sister? Children are not a problem because of our ages, so the usual arguments against incest wouldn’t apply.
What about group marriages? The polyamory and polygamy advocates are already making the same arguments that homosexuals make in favor of allowing them to marry. Why is it not a violationof the civil rights of polygamists to deny them the “right” to marry?
Can every human desire be transformed into a “civil right?” I have noticed that African Americans oppose same sex marriage at higher rates than whites. They resent the notion that homosexuals are using the language of the civil rights movement, by which they moved from slavery to full participation in American society, to advance a wholly incompatible agenda. It diminishes what has been an outstanding achievement – both for them and for the country as a whole.
The reason the state is involved in the marriage business is to ensure a legal bond between a father and his biological or legally adopted children. What happens to that bond in group marriages when no one knows which “partner” is the father of her children?
This issue needs open debate, however, to prevent this, the tactic of the proponents of same sex marriage is to shout down or stigmatize opponents. So the debate never occurs and proponents, with the help I might add of our major media outlets, are making gains. Unfortunately, the sad results will take years to become obvious to those who can’t think ahead to the obvious unintended consequences.
Recent Posts
Obama imposes 5-year oil drilling moratorium on Atlantic coast
Evan Sayet explains “How Modern Liberals Think”
Has the passage of Obamacare reduced health insurance premiums?
An apologetics reading plan for beginners
Friday night spies: Four more episodes of Danger Man
Obama suffers the most disastrous week of his Presidency
Is the Obama administration behind the leak of Israel’s plan to strike Iran?
Video: William Lane Craig and Peter Millican debate “Does God Exist?”
Government spending bankrupts our children and grandchildren
Scott Klusendorf will debate tonight at Bowling Green State University
Do gun registries solve crimes? Learning from the Canadian experience
What today’s young adults think of marriage, commitment and happiness
Books I Recommend
Australian apologist makes the case against gay marriage proposal
The Labor Party of Australia is trying to push for gay marriage, so Matthew Hamilton of Aristophrenium blog sent them an argument against it.
Excerpt:
Man-woman marriage is an important social good. As a group, as a rule, and by nature, marriages produce children. The public purpose of marriage, therefore, associates the children produced from it to their father and likewise associates the father to their mother. This cohesiveness serves to foster the best environment within which to raise children2, over and above all other forms of family combinations, and is in this real sense, a unique arrangement to be promoted.
By contrast, same-sex unions, as a group, as a rule, and by nature, cannot produce children without the involvement of a third party. Homosexual unions are socially infertile; while some homosexual partnerships do involve children from previous relationships or conceived through IVF, these arrangements are intentionally designed to deny children the nurture of one or both of their biological parents. While two homosexuals can be loving parents, it defies common sense that a homosexual man can be a good “mother” to a child, and likewise that a homosexual woman can be a good “father” to a child. Author and lawyer Dawn Stefanowicz, writing of her experience growing up with a gay father, remarked: “What makes it so hard for a girl to grow up with a gay father is that she never gets to see him loving, honoring and protecting the women in his life3.”
I think it’s important to make those two points. Boys need to have a father as a role model and girls need to have a mother as a role model. And the children also get to see, up close, how men and women get along in a loving relationship that is not built on lust, but commitment. By the time children grow, their parents are already into middle-age, usually, and the affection is more likely to be based on self-sacrifice and commitment. It’s important for children to have that example of women caring for and listening to their husbands and husbands providing for and protecting their wives.
Hamilton also writes about the threat to religious liberty posed by gay activists:
Where same-sex marriage is legalised (and even in some instances where it is not yet legal), ordinary citizens, business owners, religious believers and not-for-profit organisations will have their religious liberties and values and freedom of speech curtailed:
In Jan 2011, hotel owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull from Cornwall, UK, were ordered to pay $6000 in damages to a homosexual couple who sued them for declining to offer a room as it violated their hotel policy to only make board available to married couples4
In Illinois, Washington DC and Massachusetts, US, Catholic bishops voluntarily closed the Church’s adoption and foster-care organisations rather than comply with new non- discrimination laws following the legalising of same-sex marriage in those states which would have forced them to place children with same-sex couples5
Massachusetts, US, 2005, father David Parker was arrested after talking with his son’s school about opting his son out of mandatory pro-homosexuality teaching6. (Charges were later dropped.)
New Mexico, US, 2008, a Christian photographer was sued by a lesbian couple after refusing to shoot a gay wedding7
Canada, 2008, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was fined $5000 and banned from expressing his biblical understanding of homosexuality8
UK, Church of England lawyers state that legalising same-sex marriage in England will effectively force churches to comply9
UK, housing manager Adrian Smith was demoted10 after posting a criticism of the UK’s new gay rights law on his personal Facebook page, on his own time
Derbyshire, UK, Christians Mr and Mrs Johns denied the right to be foster parents11 after refusing to teach children in their care that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle
And recently in Canada, some provinces have introduced gay-activist propaganda into the schools, as well as making it illegal for homeschooling parents to tell their children that there is anything wrong morally with homosexuality.
Matt makes a pretty good case. I know that both the UK and Australia are both facing gay marriage bills right now. It’s always a good idea for pro-marriage, pro-family conservatives to be able to make a secular case against gay marriage. Here’s my case against same-sex marriage.
