Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage-Libre

SOME ARGUMENTS TO CONSIDER IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE:
WHY THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE PRESERVED
A Paper Presented to
Dr. George Worgul
and
Class
for
THEO 677
Spring 2012
By
Lanny Wilson
SOME ARGUMENTS TO CONSIDER IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE:

WHY THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE PRESERVED1
Introduction
Same-Sex Marriage (SSM)2 is the most hotly debated and controversial topic facing
American culture today (with the possible exception of abortion), creating vociferous reactions
both for and against. On the one hand, proponents for SSM argue it is morally necessary and its
rejection shows the homophobic and bigoted nature of the opponents to SSM. On the other hand,
opponents to SSM argue that homosexuality is inherently wrong and thus legal precedent should
not be established to canonize corrupt behavior. Both approaches are wrong headed and create
more heat than light. In opposition to the proponent of SSM, it is possible to argue against SSM
without being homophobic or bigoted. Against the opponent of SSM, it is not necessary to
address the morality of homosexuality in order to uphold a traditional view of marriage.3 There
is a middle path which this essay will attempt. I will not address the (im)morality of
This paper has been written in conjunction with Jeff Schooley who is taking the approach that Same-Sex
Marriage should be legalized. Since we were assigned the same topic, we thought it best to present two opposing
arguments in a pros v. cons format. W e have taken our own approaches to the topic. Schooleys approach is more
biblical and theoretical, while my approach is more sociological. There are some points of interaction between our
works, but they are largely complementary rather than directly competitive or head-on.
2
Some people object to the phrase same-sex marriage as they see this being an oxymoronic expression.
However, I find this expression wholly appropriate for what its proponents seek a legal marriage of same-sex
couples, with all of the rights and legal privileges in which is entailed for traditional marriages.
3
I use the term traditional in the sense that marriages culturally and historically have been between men
and women and in opposition to marriages of same-sex couples. I do not mean traditional in a narrow Americain-the-past-400-years sense.
2
homosexuality per se, but rather argue that it is reasonable not to allow SSM to become law.4 Put
another way, it is reasonable to prohibit SSM whether homosexuality is moral or not. My
argument will proceed by examining mostly social reasons for maintaining a traditional view of
marriage. SSM will alter the meaning, benefits, and purpose of marriage as well as have
detrimental side-effects on society as a whole. Next, I will respond to some arguments commonly
put forward in favor of SSM. The essay concludes with some summary remarks on this debate.
As a Christian it is customary to use the Bible as an authoritative source in discussing
important moral and/or societal issues. However, for the purposes of this essay, the biblical text
will not be used.5 There are two reasons for this. First, the Bible simply does not speak to the
issue of SSM in our contemporary context. The Old Testament in Jewish legal code is pretty well
set against homosexual relations (at least male homosexual relations) and thus does not allow for
SSM. The New Testament also says nothing regarding SSM. There are the commonly debated
verses on homosexuality in the New Testament (assuming that is what those texts are referring to
cf., Rom. 1:21-32; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). If these texts are not addressing a contemporary
understanding of homosexuality, then the New Testament is silent in regards to homosexuality
and also SSM. Second, the biblical texts, both Old and New Testament, seem to simply assume
traditional marriage. All references to marriage are traditional (heterosexual). This however only
4
I do not want to be too absolutist in my conclusion. Hence, I am only trying to prove the softer claim that
prohibiting SSM is reasonable. This in-and-of itself does not therefore entail the conclusion that allowing SSM is
unreasonable. That claim must be proved on its own merits. I will however argue that the speculated side-effects of
allowing SSM should mitigate against its legality. This is in-line with Rutgers professor David Popenoes suggestion
that if certain political goals of the organized homosexual community are not in societys best interest, it is
reasonable that they be challenged. David Popenoe, War Over the Family (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub.,
2005), 83.
5
Jeff Schooley will be interacting with the biblical text at length. W hile technically, Schooley and I agree on
my two reasons for not interacting with the Bible, he uses this as an opportunity to draw theological themes that may
allow justification for SSM.
3
tells us what was practiced for those of which the Bible speaks. Without an explicit rejection of
SSM, SSM could still be acceptable. However, if the Bible is against homosexuality in general,
then it would also be against SSM in particular. Since I am not arguing the morality of
homosexuality I am not relying on the biblical text.
Is this approach possible? Is it possible to argue against SSM without addressing the
morality of homosexuality? I believe it is, seeing that some homosexuals have argued this point
precisely.6 How is it possible to take this approach? The main strategy is by discussing social
issues, discussing what is good for society at large, rather than being absorbed in the minutia of
individual cases. The obvious downside to this approach is that the individual cases must be
addressed at some point, and must be handled in a moral manner these are real lives after all.
Nevertheless, the needs of society at large may occasionally mitigate against an individuals
desires.
I am not confident that a philosophical argument against SSM can take place in the
American context (see below). Hence, the social approach offers the most promising arguments
against SSM. McGill University professor Paul Nathanson (who is gay) and University of
Virginia professor Katherine K. Young (who is not) argue that the government has no obvious
Jim Rinnert argues for civil unions for same-sex couples, not marriage. Differences between civil unions
and marriage will take us too far beyond this essay. Suffice to say, even some homosexuals are against SSM. Jim
Rinnert, The Trouble with Gay Marriage, www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_trouble_with_gay_marriage (accessed
January 31, 2012). McGill University professor Paul Nathanson, likewise, is gay and argues that traditional marriage
should be upheld. His joint research and argument with University of Virginia professor Katherine K. Young will be
utilized extensively for this essay. They note that some gay people, like some feminists, see marriage as an
inherently oppressive patriarchal institution and want no part of it. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young,
Marriage la mode: Answering the Advocates of Gay Marriage, www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf
(accessed January 30, 2012). Their essay was a presentation delivered on the campus of Emory University in 2003.
Unfortunately, the document has no set page numbers.
4
or compelling reason to promote SSM.7 Rather, heterosexuality must be fostered as the
cultural norm and not considered as just merely allowed as one lifestyle choice among many.8
Additionally, they note that this fostering inherently creates a privileged status for heterosexual
couples and society cannot survive without this privileging.9 Their conclusion, the politically
inconvenient fact is that society needs a specifically heterosexual contribution more than any
homosexual counterpart.10 That is, society needs to promote heterosexual relationships in order
to survive. Homosexual relationships may be allowed (tolerated?) within a society, but as these
relationships are not conducive directly to that societys survival, they are, thus, not as valuable
as heterosexual relationships.
Today, the argument against SSM cannot be fought along philosophical lines.
Philosophically, there is no reason not to allow SSM given the cultural understanding of what
marriage is.11 Though many people have a nostalgic sense of what traditional marriage is, in
practice they hold a non-traditional understanding. Marriage, as popularly understood today, is
mere coupling. It is a sign of commitment from two people that have an affection for one
another. If you feel that you are in love, then you should get married. If you fall out of love,
then you should get a divorce. There is no permanence to the bonding in matrimony. This
understanding has developed in the past one hundred years or so. First, Freud taught us that
Nathanson and Young, n.6.
Ibid.
Ibid.
10
11
Ibid., n.12.
By philosophical I mean popular level philosophy. There are some natural law and philosophical
anthropological arguments against homosexuality (and thus SSM), but these will not be considered in this essay.
5
sexual expression is the pinnacle of human existence. Next, Planned parent-hood freed the
procreative and sexual link in marriage. People could have sex without worrying about children.
Later, Playboy magazine popularized the ideals that sex is casual and that men should keep their
options open. By the time no-fault divorce became law in the late sixties and seventies, the
cultural attitude of what marriage is had already shifted from a permanent bonding of man and
woman for the procreation and rearing of children, to mere coupling and sentimentality. No-fault
divorce did not cause the current popular view of marriage (though it does reinforce it), rather it
is the result of a change in attitude from the previous seventy years.12 Nathanson and Young note
that during this time period American culture saw the rise of excessive individualism;13
hedonism; and anti-intellectualism.14 They insightfully state:
Gay people [did not] invent radical individualism. Although they have adopted it
successfully, this political strategy had already become pervasive in the straight world.
The campaign for gay marriage was inconceivable, in fact, until both hedonism and
radical individualism had already prevailed in the larger society. The chickens have come
home to roost, as it were, and straight people have only themselves to thank for any dire
consequences.15
12
Divorce, moreover, is no longer acknowledged by everyone as a serious social problem. . . . it has been
reinterpreted as a personal problem or even as an opportunity for personal growth. . . . many people no longer feel
constrained by anything not the safety or interests of others and sometimes not even legal considerations in their
relentless search for personal pleasure (often known as self-realization). There have always been hedonists, of
course, but hedonism has seldom been tacitly accepted or even publicly celebrated by so many people. Nathanson
and Young.
13
Individualism has . . . come to mean . . . anything goes, Ibid.
14
Expressing something is not the same as legitimating it. For that, the academics must be called in. W ho
would legitimate self-indulgence? No one would. But our society has turned all political debates into demands for
rights and based these demands, at least partly, on the need for self-esteem. In other words, feeling good about
yourself (and whatever group provides you with personal identity) trumps any rational argument about the needs of
society as a whole. . . . Given this lack of respect for reason, let alone intellectual integrity, it is hardly surprising to
find that many citizens are already prepared to be [sic] believe that change is a synonym for progress, and that
anyone who opposes an innovation should be ridiculed for fear of change. Ibid.
15
Ibid., n.35.
6
Traditional marriage died philosophically in America several decades ago. Today, traditional
marriage is on life-support and can only be resuscitated along sociological lines. I suppose a
philosophical or religious revival of some sort could take place reinvigorating traditional
marriage, but given how long it takes ideas to filter into society, this is not likely.
Historically and cross-culturally, marriage exhibits three dimensions: universal; nearly
universal; and variable. Seeing these differences can tell us something about the human condition
in regards to the institution of marriage. It is important to look at marriage historically and crossculturally because if we only consider one form of it, the variables of that one culture may mask
universal aspects of marriage. Likewise, some universal aspects may be considered as variables.16
Nathanson and Young note the universal features of marriage are: it encourages procreation;
recognizes interdependence of men and women; defines eligible partners; supported by
authorities and incentives; has a public dimension; provides support for men, women, and their
children.17 Likewise, they note the nearly universal features: emphasizes durable relationships
between biological parents; mutual affection and companionship; familial (and/or political)
alliances; encourages intergenerational mingling.18 Variable features are also present:
endogamy (marriage within one group); exogamy (marriage outside a group); change in social
16
It could be argued that focusing on universals and nearly universals produces the methodological
problem of essentialism. But this is a false problem for three reasons. First, there really is an empirical basis for the
existence of the features. Second, using inductive reason to discern patterns is a fundamental characteristic of
scholarship. And third, any phenomenon so common as to be universal or nearly universal surely reveals something
basic in the human condition. Because the most common biological tendency for human beings is heterosexuality
our species reproduces sexually, which has an evolutionary advantage over the asexual reproduction of some other
species and because heterosexual culture (especially marriage) is the necessary complement of heterosexual
biology, every human society has actively fostered it. Ibid., n.9.
17
Nathanson and Young.
18
Ibid.
7
status (either up or down); arranged marriages; dowry (paid by brides family); bride price (paid
by grooms family); sexual equality; sexual hierarchy; number of children (if any); etc.19 It is only
recently that the universal and nearly universal aspects of marriage have been questioned.20 The
fact is,
Every society needs a public heterosexual culture, specifically marriage, to foster five
things: (a) the birth and rearing of children . . . ; (b) the bonding between men and women
in order to provide an appropriate setting for maturing children . . . ; (c) the bonding
between men and children so that men are likely to become active participants in family
life; (d) some healthy form of masculine identity . . . ; and (e) the transformation of
adolescents into sexually responsible adults.21
With this understanding of how the discussion is being framed, how we arrived where we are
culturally, and how marriage has historically been viewed, we can now consider specific
arguments and counter arguments for SSM.
Some Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

There is a guiding sub-text for the argument of this essay and that is that the traditional
nuclear family is better for society than any alternative.22 As such, I have arranged the
19
Alternatives to marriage are celebrated in some societies (as in the case of celibate monks, for instance,
or shamans) and tolerated in others (such as single people or gay couples) but only when the larger society is in no
danger of failing to reproduce itself. Ibid.
20
Popenoe states Across time and cultures, fathers have always been considered essential and not just for
their sperm. Indeed, until today, no known society ever thought of fathers as potentially unnecessary. Marriage and
the nuclear family mother, father, and children are the most universal social institutions in existence. Popenoe,
War Over the Family, 119. Yet, this is precisely what advocates of SSM want to change.
21
22
Popenoe notes, Nuclear familism and homosexualism as lifestyles incorporate contradictory values and
views of the world. It would be a moral contradiction for society to affirm and promote the nuclear family, with its
basis in heterosexuality and its generation and nurturance of children, while at the same time affirming and
promoting all of the values of the homosexual subculture. Fully aware of this contradiction, the homosexual
community has assumed a leading role in attempts to redefine the family under the banner of family diversity and to
cast doubt on the validity and importance of heterosexuality. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 83.
8
arguments against SSM under four headings. First, we will examine how SSM alters the meaning
of marriage by exploring how marriage has historically and culturally been understood as an
institution between males and females, how it opens the door to polygamy and incest, and how it
will redefine our views on monogamy. Second, explore how SSM will alter the benefits of
marriage in that marriage brings men and women together as well as society. Third, investigate
how SSM alters the purpose of marriage in showing that marriage is supposed to replace
members of society and raise well-rounded children who will be productive citizens. Finally,
consider possible negative affects on society that do not deal with marriage directly by
examining: how legalizing SSM will affect children; the detrimental effect it will have on males
in society; the limiting of free speech; the stunting of academic research; the polarization of
society; and how special concessions for reproduction will given.
Same-Sex Marriage Alters the Meaning of Marriage

Historically and culturally marriage has been understood as male and female
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George make the following observation: A husband and wife
are complementary in a unique sense: they constitute a single subject (forming a bodily and
personal unity) uniquely suited to bear and rear their own biological children; they are inherently
suited to form a union that naturally (if all goes well) enlarges into family.23 There are no
examples in recorded history (until the last couple of decades) in which a society has accepted
SSM on a cultural scale. There are a few examples of SSM in isolated and limited
23
Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, Quaestio Disputata: W hat Male-Female Complementarity Makes
Possible: Marriage as a Two-in-One-Flesh Union. Theological Studies 69 (2008): 661.
9
circumstances.24 Four popular examples of SSM and homosexual behavior across history and
cultures are examples in some west African tribes, Emperor Nero, the Native American
berdache, and some historical Buddhist views on homosexuality. Do these examples offer a
counter argument that marriage has customarily been understood between men and women?
I do not think that these examples prove the widespread acceptance of SSM from history
or cultures. First, these are isolated examples. From the myriad of cultures from which we have
records these are put forward as the best instances of SSM from the past.25 Using Nathanson
and Youngs understanding between universal and variable examples of marriage, SSM in these
cases seems to be more of a variable rather than a universal rule. Second, these instances of SSM
do not reflect widespread acceptance even in those cultures. For example, women who marry
women in west Africa has more the earmarks of a business transaction than a traditional
marriage, it is not usually love or sex that bring them together. Some of these women are
married as surrogates for their husband to father children.26 Nor is Nero a good example seeing
how he generally liked to upset social conventions.27 The Native American berdache was a very
specific status. They only married wealthier males who were already involved in an existing
24
Clellan Ford and Frank Beach looked at over 70 different cultures and determined that 64% adopted and
accepted some form of homosexual behavior. Most of the cultures looked at tended to be tribal in nature. Hence,
Native American, Islander, African, and Serbian groups are mostly mentioned. Clellan S. Ford and Frank A Beach,
Patterns of Sexual Behavior (W estport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1951), 130-134.
25
This is even acknowledging the widespread practice of homosexuality in some of these cultures. There are
also some historical societies that strongly condemned homosexual practices, see Ford and Beach, 129-130. If one
wants to appeal to cultures that accept homosexuality for justification of homosexual relationships, then why could
cultures that do not accept homosexuality not also be taken as normative?
26
Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 50-51.
27
Nero famously used Christians to light his garden by burning them. He was known to murder people
routinely, burned Rome, and appointed a horse to the Senate. Not exactly a sterling representative for SSM. Ibid., 50.
10
heterosexual (or polygamous) relationship. Berdaches never married another berdache. The
berdache was considered a woman, and this status was generally ridiculed (or seen as a curiosity)
by the public. Berdaches were primarily servants and their tenure was usually short-lived.28
Likewise, the Buddhist acceptance of homosexual relationships applied only to males under
specific circumstances. These were relationships between an adult (the active partner) and an
adolescent male(s) (the passive partner), and were short-lived. The relationship would only last
until the adolescent came of age. Even after participating in this behavior, both of these males
would customarily marry (women) and begin families.29 The fact is, there are no known
examples in history of a culture accepting SSM on the scale that is being proposed today even
when that society accepted homosexual practices.30
SSM opens the door to polygamy and incest

The argument for SSM is essentially that two responsible and loving adults should have
the freedom to do what they want and this committed and loving relationship should be
acknowledged by society as a legitimate familial unit. However, the question to be asked is why
only two responsible and loving adults? What if there are three or four responsible and loving
adults? Can these responsible and loving adults be family members? Can a father marry his adult
daughter (or son)? Can grandma or grandpa be in on the relationship? The issue facing
28
See Suzanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: Anthropological Perspective on Human

Sexuality (New York: Human Relations Area File Press, 1985), 89. And Stanton and Maier, 51.
29
Dharmachari Janavira, Homosexuality in the Japanese Buddhist Tradition

www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html (accessed February 6, 2012).
30
See Ford and Beach, 130-134 for examples of groups that regularly practice homosexual acts, but even
when homosexual marriage is present, it does not look anything like what proponents of SSM are suggesting
today.
11
proponents of SSM is that the very same arguments that are used to justify SSM are the ones
used to justify polygamy and incest.31 Polygamy even has the advantage over SSM. Historically
and cross-culturally there are more examples and reasons to accept polygamy than SSM.
Nathanson and Young state It is by no means outlandish, therefore, to suggest that the demand
of polygamous marriage would follow directly from the demand for gay marriage especially in
view of the fact that some Muslims and Mormons would approve.32
It is conceivable that our society may accept polygamous relationships (given there are
popular television shows highlighting these relationships). Regardless of the counter-argument
that polygamy hurts women, the argument for polygamy is exactly the same as the one for SSM.
Incest, likewise, follows from the exact same argument for SSM. The counter-arguments against
incest are different (and powerful), but if the argument for SSM is so overpowering that no
reason can be given to show that it should not be granted, then the same goes for incest. Only
political expediency would allow advocates of gay marriage to deny that.33 Social taboos have
reasons. Incest is such a taboo precisely because the state cannot keep children from the adults
that raise them on a massive scale. Hence, the social taboo on incest is in place to help raise well-
31
Some people want to add bestiality as well. I do not. This essay is assuming relationships are
consensual. Despite how one may feel towards their beloved goat or cow, it is notoriously difficult to know an
animals commitment to the relationship or whether it is consenting at all regarding sexual advances. As such, I
will only consider human relationships.
32
Nathanson and Young. In fact, the family of the popular television show Sister Wives has recently filed a
lawsuit challenging the states bigamy laws. See Sister W ives Lawsuit: Federal Judge Rules TV Family Can
Question Bigamy Statute, www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/sister-wives-law-suit-bigamy_n_1255622.html
(accessed February 5, 2012).
33
12
adjusted children.34 But why not allow incest among adults? If the arguments for SSM are valid
and compelling, then so too are the arguments for incest.
One of the arguments that Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler make (in justifying
homosexual acts, not necessarily SSM) is that homosexuals have lived experiences of
monogamous, loving, committed, [relationships] . . . , these couples have confronted it
experientially and they tell us that they do experience personal complementarity in and through
homosexual acts. They add that these acts also facilitate the integration of their human sexuality,
thereby realizing the basic good of self-integration.35 That is, same-sex couples experience
committed and deeply complex emotional ties to one another. Why cannot this deep seated love
be expressed in a marriage recognized by society? Lee and George respond, The devastating
point against [Salzman and Lawler] is precisely that polyamorists, polygamists (including more
than a few women in formal or informal polygamous relationships), and even many adulterers
and unmarried teens report positive feelings about their sexual acts not just physical feelings
but complex feelings about what their acts seem to them to contribute to personal
relationships.36 Thus, if SSM is passed legally, there is no argument that can stop polyamorists.
The arguments for SSM, polyamory, polygamy, and incest are exactly the same. The counterarguments are different, but the arguments in favor are the same.
Now it could be stated that this argument is the same as saying allowing marriage opens
34
Stanley Kurtz, The Libertarian Question: Incest, Homosexuality, and Adultery in Same-Sex Marriage:
The Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004),
264.
35
Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler. The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology
(W ashington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2008), 66.
36
Lee and George, 654-655.
13
the door for divorce. Should we therefore prevent marriage to avoid divorce? Stated differently,
divorce is to marriage what polygamy and incest is to SSM, and since we marry despite divorce,
so too should SSM be legal despite polygamy and incest. There is some merit to this line of
thought. Just because a negative is made possible by the existence of a positive it does not then
follow we should not allow the positive. However, this counter-argument is ultimately flawed for
two reasons. First, societies need traditional marriages in order to survive, but societies do not
need SSM. Under a traditional sense, marriage was for the procreation and raising of children
and was permanent. Divorce was allowed, but rarely utilized. Second, divorce is due to the
breakdown of marriage, but polygamy and incest is not due to the breakdown of SSM. Indeed,
the reasons for divorce do not follow from the reasons for marriage, but the reasons for polygamy
and incest do follow from the reasons for SSM. The reasons for polygamy and incest are exactly
the same as the reasons for SSM. It therefore follows that if we legalize SSM, then we must
(logically) allow for polygamy and incest. If we (as a society) do not want to legalize polygamy
and incest, then we should not legalize SSM.
Monogamy will be abandoned or at least re-defined

Some homosexual couples are incredibly faithful to their partner and many heterosexual
couples are not faithful to theirs. However, by-and-large, married heterosexual couples are
monogamously faithful and homosexual couples (by-and-large) are not.37 The stereotype of the
37
Michael W . W iederman, Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey, Journal of
Sex Research 34 (1997): 170, found that 77% of men and 88% of women remained monogamously faithful during
marriage. Likewise, E. O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United
States (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994 ), 216, found that 75% of men and 85% of women remained
sexually faithful. In contrast, pro-SSM advocate Daniel Maguire admits that homosexual men are more
promiscuous than any other group. Daniel Maguire, The Morality of Homosexual Marriage, in Same-Sex
Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate eds. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus
14
promiscuous gay man became a stereotype for a reason.38 Statistically, homosexuals have many
more sexual partners than heterosexuals.39 Whether this behavior is driven by the marginalization
of homosexuals by society at large, strong libidos, or what-have-you, the fact remains that
homosexuals are more sexually active with a greater number of partners than heterosexuals.40 As
homosexuality is becoming more accepted culturally, it will be interesting to see if this
promiscuousness continues or is tempered.41
One trend among homosexual couples is to claim monogamy, but still have sex with
others outside the relationship. The idea is that so long as you are open and honest about what
you are doing with your partner, then it is still considered monogamy. For example, Jim and
Books, 2004), 156. Homosexual advocates David P. McW hirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How
Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), 252-253, determined that any gay relationship over
five years incorporated some provision for allowing multiple sexual partners.
38
This does not mean that all stereotypes are right, nor does it mean that stereotypes should be applied to
any individual. It does recognize that repeated behavior in a certain demographic labels that demographic as a certain
stereotype.
39
A. P. Bell and M. S. W einberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 308-309, determined that 43% of white homosexuals had over 500 sexual partners
and 28% had over 1000. Paul Van de Ven, Paul, Pamela Rodden, June Crawford, and Susan Kippax., A
Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men, Journal of Sex Research 34
(1997): 354, determined the modal range of homosexual partners was 101-500 in a lifetime, with 10-15% having
between 501 to 1000, and another 10-15% over 1000 sexual partners. They further determined only 2.7% of
homosexual men have had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.
40
More sexual activity leads to a greater risk of STDs. The CDC has identified men who have sex with
men (MSM) statistically to have a greater chance of HIV/AIDS. MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all
new cases of infections and in 2007 determined MSM were 44 to 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with
HIV/AIDS than other men. In 2008 the CDC determined that 19% (1 in 5!) of MSM in 21 major cities had
HIV/AIDS and 44% were unaware they had contracted the disease. See HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men
W ho Have Sex with Men (MSM), www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/pdf/msm.pdf (accessed January 29, 2012).
41
A report out of the University of W indsor in Canada indicates that young gay men and men new to the
homosexual lifestyle are enjoying a more traditional understanding of monogamy. Barry D. Adam, Relationship
Innovation in Male Relationships Sexualities 9 (2006): 5-26. Perhaps this trend will continue, it is too early to tell at
this point. But even here, monogamy only applied to 25% of those interviewed and these relationships were less than
3 years old.
15
Steve have been a monogamous couple for several years. They are open and honest in
regards to their sexual desires for other men, have an occasional three-way, and thus they have
an open relationship. However, at the end of the day they come home to one another for love
and support. Any other men they meet is simply casual sex and nothing more. We can admire
Jim and Steve for their open and honest commitment to one another, but this is a far cry from
what has historically been meant by monogamy. Yet, if SSM passes, it looks as though this
trend will continue. Couples will be said to be monogamous and yet have outside sexual
relationships.42 If society accepts SSM, then it appears society will also need to accept the idea
that a monogamous marriage can include multiple sexual partners.
Alters the Benefits of Marriage

Marriage is an institution that brings men and women together
Marriage brings men and women together. Society encourages these relationships because
it is good for the growth and stability of society. However, as men do not play a major part of the
biological life cycle, their role has traditionally been encouraged more so on the rearing aspect of
parenthood. Men need to contribute to the rearing of children. Society, in turn, honors that
devotion with the term father. But, as the role of men in the lives of children is diminished,
there is a rise in unhealthy masculine behavior. In America about 41% of all births are out of
wedlock,43 and this results in a trend that glorifies single motherhood by bypassing men and their
42
See Joe Kort, Are Gay Male Couples Monogamous Ever After?
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after (accessed
February 13, 2012).
43
National Vital Statistics Report http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table16

(accessed February 13, 2012). Of particular note is that 73% of African American children are born out of wedlock.
16
role as fathers. All of this has the result of systematically removing men from traditional familial
roles. This, unfortunately, is fragmenting society. Nathanson and Young note the danger, Our
society is becoming more and more fragmented along sexual . . . lines. One possible result, in the
long run, could be a society that is polarized into separate communities of men and women,
whether gay or straight.44 As men are separated from their familial role, they will in turn
withdraw from society (See below about the effects SSM will have on males). Likewise, women
will withdraw into support and help groups. As society adopts the views that masculine and
feminine are strictly culturally determined and that men and women are interchangeable, the
fracturing of society along sexual lines is likely. Society needs men and women to come together,
but with the legitimization of SSM, there is no social institution that remains to encourage their
intermingling.
Marriage brings society together

This is not to say that men and women would absolutely avoid each other. Indeed,
hormones will still reign supreme and men and women will certainly connect. Individuals
would come together for copulation and companionship, of course, but enduring bonds would be
seen as unnecessary restrictions on personal freedom. . . . Marriage has never before been so
heavily associated with the wants and needs of adults as individuals.45 However, marriage has
not always been viewed this way. Marriage was seen as a communal life. It raised children in
stable situations. It did not shuttle them around between parents or living situations to meet the
44
45
Ibid.
17
emotional needs of adults.46 A stable home-life was seen as the ideal situation in which to raise
tomorrows productive citizens. As Nathanson and Young comment, marriage has always been
heavily associated with the needs of both children (expressed as the ideal of interdependence
between men and women for the sake of children) and with those of the community (expressed
as the ideal of interdependence between men and women for the sake of society as a whole).47
One objection to this line of thought is that social fragmentation can be better attributed
to educational or social status rather than the breakdown of marriage. While this may be true
now, this is not the case historically or cross-culturally. Even in societies that determine who you
can/cannot marry based on social status did not fragment society over this issue. Indeed marriage
among the classes was specifically for the stabilization of society (even if it was stabilized to
keep the ruling class in power). The fact is, until recently marriage was always associated with
the cohesive affect it had on society. Until recently marriage was not just about satisfying the
needs and wants of men and women, gay or straight. Separating sex from marriage and
procreation, and legitimizing it on a societal level has fractured society from individuals, parents
from children, and men from women.48
46
Popenoe remarks, human cultures have used sanctions to bind men to their children, and of course the
institution of marriage has been cultures chief vehicle. Marriage is societys way of signaling that the community
approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children, and that the long-term relationship of the
parents is socially important. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 119.
47
48
Ibid.
18
Alters the Purpose of Marriage
Marriage encourages the replacement of citizens for a society
Western societies are dying a slow death. In a developed society, the average woman
needs to have 2.1 children in order for the population of that society to be stable.49 Only two of
the thirty-five countries in the European Union currently are at replacement levels.50 The United
States is currently (barely) at replacement level and Canada has been below replacement level
since 1973.51 If these trends continue, there will be a significant decrease in the number of
citizens contributing to the welfare of society. As fewer children are born, this will pose serious
challenges to public institutions that rely on a growing citizen base (e.g., Social Security, tax
revenues, etc.). No society can survive without heterosexual unions. It is a truism, frequently
forgotten by large complex societies, that only societies that reproduce survive.52 Without the
encouragement and privileging of traditionally married couples to have and raise children,
society will eventually decline and die out. It is for this reason that societies have encouraged the
49
In developing countries the rate may need to be as high as 4 children per woman simply because of the
mortality rate.
50
Only Iceland and Turkey are currently replacing their citizens via birth. See Fertility Statistics,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Fertility_statistics (accessed February 4, 2012).
51
The US as of 2009 had a replacement birthrate of 2.05 with Canada at 1.67. See Fertility Rate,
www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=e
n&q=total+fertility+rate+united+states#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin
&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA:CAN&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en (accessed February 4, 2012).
See also National Vital Statistics Report http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table16
52
Maggie Gallagher, Normal Marriage: Two Views, in Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate eds.
Lynn D. W ardle, Mark Strasser, W illiam C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge (W estport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 17.
19
traditional notion of marriage it helps society survive.53
Maggie Gallagher has commented that marriage and family are rooted in obligation and
dependence, not equality and autonomy. Family is for the raising of children to become
tomorrows citizens. She says, Marriage is the means by which societies do their best to secure
fathers for children and to encourage lovers to make babies in the best possible circumstances.54
This view, however, is not popular today. Being that most persons notions of what marriage is
approaches coupling there is a skepticism that marriage is (ultimately) about having and raising
children. Teresa Collett has insightfully remarked, With marriage no longer presumed to be
enduring, sex no longer limited to the marital bed, and children no longer understood to be the
natural consequence of engaging in sexual intercourse, it should come as no surprise that
skepticism greets those who argue that the states recognition of marriage is inextricably tied to
procreation and family.55 This skepticism, while natural in our cultural climate, ultimately
breaks-down societys ability and interest to survive.
53
Birthrate is already falling below replacement level [in Canada], as it is in almost every W estern country,
but the situation could get much worse. W hy? Because, as we say, no public support would be available to encourage
the creation or rearing of children by straight couples. And we could expect even more absentee fathers. W hy?
Because this would be a society preoccupied by the primacy of equality, by the rights of adults over those of
children, and by the notion that men and women are interchangeable. In that society, the importance of fathers in
family life would be even more obscure to most people than it already is. Nathanson and Young. Of course, one of
the main assumptions of this argument is that ones society is worth preserving.
54
Maggie Gallagher, A Reality W aiting to Happen: A Response to Evan W olfson, in Marriage and SameSex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D. W ardle, mark Strasser, W illiam C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge
(W estport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 12.
55
Teresa Stanton Collett, Should Marriage Be Privileged? The States Interest in Childbearing Unions, in
Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D. W ardle, Mark Strasser, W illiam C. Duncan, and David
Orgon Coolidge (W estport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 159.
20
Marriage is for the purpose of raising well rounded children
Perhaps somewhat obvious, but none-the-less important, is the fact that children need
parents.56 They need both a mother and a father in order to be born.57 This is the natural order of
things and no one debates this. The debate is whether children need a mother and a father in
order to be reared. Is a mother-mother or father-father relationship just as conducive to a childs
development? In arguing for traditional marriage it is important to note a couple of things. First,
as Nathanson and Young point out One thing that they [children] surely require is at least one
parent of each sex. . . . the sexes are not quite interchangeable. . . . both sexes are distinctive.
Boys cannot learn how to become healthy men from even the most loving mother (or pair of
mothers) alone. And girls cannot learn how to become healthy women from even the most loving
father (or pair of fathers) alone.58 Men and women contribute something unique to the role of
parenting.59
Second, if SSM is legalized then the law will be affirming that children do not need
mothers and fathers, and that marriage has nothing to do with babies.60 Children will be seen as
a contractual agreement not as a biological consequence. As Maggie Gallagher as argued,
56
Popenoe states, the main social purpose for the institution of marriage is the insurance of family stability
for children. . . . This institutional purpose, and therefore the importance of the social institution in general, would
surely be compromised by incorporating the marriage of same-sex couples. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 84.
57
For now at least. Once reproductive technologies advance far enough, it is likely that children will be born
only from a mother or a father.
58
59
Men bring an array of unique and irreplaceable qualities that women do not ordinarily bring [to raising
children]. . . . Recent research . . . into the fathers role in childrearing. . . . shows that in almost all of their
interactions with children, fathers do things a little differently from mothers. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 122.
60
Gallagher, A Reality W aiting to Happen, 12 (emphasis added).
21
advocates for SSM have diligently pushed the idea that contract, not biology, creates parental
obligations, in part because it is the only possible way for same-sex couples to have children
together. The old stubborn reality that the people who make the baby are its parents must be
shoved aside . . . . The people who thought up the baby are its real parents.61 The consequences
of this line of thinking, however, is that neither the biological father nor the mother are a childs
parent(s) if they do not want to be the biological parents have no legal connections to the baby.
This puts the welfare of children at risk.62 If parenthood is based on who wants babies, then why
do we chase men down to pay child support when they clearly do not want the child?63
Third, children want to know who their parents are biologically. This is a source of
personal identity and many adopted children go to great lengths to either contact or discover their
biological parents. Children, whether adopted or born from sperm banks, surrogacy, or any other
method that detaches them from their biological parents, can experience this separation as a
source of frustration and anguish.64 Lee and George point out that A child has a natural need for
the love and care of her own biological mother and her own biological father. Since we are
bodily beings, with bodily connections to a mother, a father, grandparents, and perhaps uncles,
aunts, brothers, and sisters, and since persons are not mere isolated individuals, part of our
61
Gallagher, Normal Marriage, 16.
62
Ibid., 17.
63
Ibid.
64
Nathanson and Young also note that in regards to adoption, It is one thing to admire adoptive parents for
replacing unavoidably absent parents (motivated by altruism on behalf of children) but another thing to argue that
adoptive parenting should be considered an alternative lifestyle (motivated by the desire of adults). Nathanson and
Young.
22
personal identity consists in these relationships.65 If this is the case, then policies should not be
adopted that will intentionally detach children from (both) their biological parents. Having said
that, even if SSM is not passed, it may still be beneficial to let same-sex couples adopt children
(depending on the social need).66 Same-sex parents may not be the best choice for a child, but
it is assuredly better than the alternative (i.e., orphanages, foster homes, etc). See the section
below regarding information about the effects of children growing up in same-sex households.
Finally, we know the effects on children that grow up without fathers. We have decades
worth of data detailing the destructive consequences of children growing up in a singleparenthood home.67 Single parenting (usually mothers, and sometimes by choice) is considered a
lifestyle.68 The message to fathers and their children is that men have no distinctive,
necessary, and publicly valued function in family life. And the psychological and sociological
results of fatherless children on a massive scale . . . are not exactly encouraging.69 One of the
65
Lee and George, 661.
66
I am not sure it would be wise to put same-sex couples ahead of heterosexual couples looking to adopt,
if it is the case that children need both male and female influences in their development. Popenoe says something
similar in that it may be beneficial to create something like marriage with some of the benefits of married couples,
but he stops short of saying homosexual couples should have full marriage benefits. Popenoe, War Over the Family,
84.
67
Popenoe lists some of the problems attending fatherlessness in children: crime and delinquency;
premature sexuality and out-of-wedlock births to teenagers; deteriorating educational achievement; depression,
substance abuse, and alienation among adolescents; and the growing number of women and children in poverty.
Popenoe, War Over the Family, 117.
68
Popenoe laments, few people doubt the fundamental importance of mothers. But fathers? More and
more, the question of whether fathers are really necessary is being raised. . . . to the degree that fathers are still
thought necessary, fatherhood is said by many to be merely a social role that others can play. Popenoe, War Over
the Family, 117.
69
Nathanson and Young. It is fathers that disappear. Gallagher explains, Once we sever, conceptually, the
sexual alliance and the parenting alliance, we sever children from their uncontested claim on their parents
especially their fathers care and protection. It is the fathers who disappear, because while fathers and mothers are
equally beloved and important to their children, fatherhood and motherhood are not equally natural or inevitable.
23
problems with passing SSM is that it will legitimize the idea that fatherless homes are an
acceptable consequence of adult emotional needs.70 The problem is the message that is sent.
There will be mothers (gay and straight) that love their children, just as there will be fathers (gay
and straight) that also love their children. But Children require more than love from their
parents, whether gay or straight.71 They need both fathers and mothers.72 This has led Nathanson
and Young to believe that The welfare of children is an afterthought for advocates of gay
marriage and single parenting, not something that takes priority over their own interests. . . .
[childrens] needs are hardly ever taken seriously in the debate over gay marriage; they have
become bystanders in a debate over the rights of adults.73 They go on to state in a lengthy
passage:
The advocates of gay marriage are interested primarily or even only in the interests of gay
adults. . . . the primary beneficiaries [of SSM] are still adults, not children. Which is why
advocates of gay marriage try to argue that children would at least be no worse off with
gay parents than with straight ones (or better off with good gay parents than with bad
straight ones). The social-science evidence is sometimes ambiguous, but we do know by
now that two parents are better for children than one, that families with both mothers and
fathers are better for children than those with only mothers or only fathers, and that
biological parents have some advantages over adoptive ones. That these facts are either
ignored or trivialized by advocates of gay marriage and of single parents, by the way,
70
Even when other factors (such as race and intelligence are) are [sic] accounted for, it remains true that
boys without fathers are approximately twice as likely (and boys who grow up in stepfamilies are approximately
three times as likely) as other boys to end up in jail by their early thirties. Nathanson and Young, n.18.
71
72
Popenoe states that it is decidedly worse for a child to lose a father in the modern, voluntary way than
through death. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 118. SSM would encourage children to lose fathers in the
modern, voluntary way.
73
24
whether gay or straight says something about concern for children in our time.74
Traditionally marriage was for the training and rearing of tomorrows citizens. It has historically
been acknowledged that this is best done in a situation in which the biological mother and father
of the child are united in marriage. If SSM is legalized, the message sent is that mothers and
fathers are not necessary for the raising of children and that parenting is a matter of contractual
choice not biological consequence.75
Other Possible Negative Effects of Allowing Same-Sex Marriage

G. K. Chesterton is famous for having made the point that before we go knocking down
fences we better be sure why they were put there in the first place.76 Traditional marriage is such
a fence, and before we irreversibly knock it over, we best understand the possible consequences
of such an action. Examining the possible negative effects of overturning a long standing
institution is the morally right thing to do.77 Advocates of SSM should be aware that they are
considering one of the most serious [social] experiments in human history.78 In their haste,
clamoring for equal rights, SSM activists are not considering society at large. As Nathanson
74
Nathanson and Young. Popenoe says the same thing, on the whole, two parents a father and a mother
are better for a child than one parent. There are to be sure, many factors that complicate this simple proposition . . .
But such exceptions do not invalidate the rule any more than the fact that some three-pack-a-day smokers live to a
ripe old age casts doubt on the dangers of cigarettes. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 120. That is, despite some
exceptions, in general children do better with a mother and father than any other combination.
75
Popenoe states that as a society we should be tolerant of homosexual practices, but that does not mean we
should make a full affirmation to their lifestyle. Societies dedicated to the promotion of strong families and childcenteredness should not at the same time advocate or affirm all of the values associated with homosexuality as it is
expressed today. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 83.
76
G. K. Chesterton, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1930), 27.
77
78
Ibid.
25
and Young state, 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.79
Any public policy action must account for the risks. The danger is that it may result in a
paralyzation of policy making as we are forever searching and seeking possible negative side
effects. This is possible, but I think unlikely.80 Further, the more serious the change being
proposed, the more necessary it is to explore possible side effects. Ideas have consequences, and
unseen consequences of well-intentioned laws can have dramatic and detrimental effects:
Forty years ago, divorce laws were changed to help the few who were trapped in seriously
troubled marriages. Divorce is now as common as marriage itself. Worse, we have
replaced one problem with many others. We have not only severely weakened marriage
but also, as a result, greatly increased the number of divorces, the number of single-parent
families, and the number of children dependent on social-service agencies. . . . The fact is
that we have no better understanding of what might happen as a result of legalizing gay
marriage than we did about making divorce easier.81
Before we (as a society) make one of the most substantial societal changes in history, it is
prudent to make sure that we fully understand, comprehend, and accept the possible outcomes.
We owe our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren that much.
79
Ibid.
80
Indeed, given the many questionable laws that do get passed, perhaps a little caution would be beneficial.
81
Nathanson and Young. Gallagher makes the same point, the call for SSM redefined as a personal right
that only hatred and unreason prevent from coming to fruition, looks startlingly similar to the juggernaut for the
divorce culture raised by elites in the sixties and seventies. Then too preliminary social science evidence was treated
as unassailable proof that reason was on the side of divorce easy and often. Children, we were told, after a brief
period of crisis, recuperated and indeed did better when parents divorced. After many years of data we can conclude
the soothsayers of divorce were wrong. Gallagher, A Reality W aiting to Happen, 11.
26
Children will be taught conflicting values
Just because the law changes in legalizing SSM, it would not automatically follow that
everyone would agree that such unions are moral or acceptable. Many (mostly religious) groups
would still maintain major reservations in accepting SSM as an alternative and legitimate
expression of marriage. The children will go to school where they will be taught SSM is just as
legitimate as traditional marriage, but then go home, church, synagogue, mosque, etc., and be
taught the opposite. Any teacher that refuses to teach that SSM is a valid alternative (for
whatever reason) will be punished for discrimination. This will lead to the demand for more
religious schooling and a further fracturing of society as some of its members will be sequestered
from the broader public.82
Now, it is not necessarily a bad thing that children are taught various values. Indeed, this
is one of the benefits of living in a pluralistic society there are many different values and
viewpoints for examining those values. The value of pluralism is also its downside in that not
everyone shares the same values. Some values are held more highly than others, and others are
simply despised. Some parents simply do not want their children to be inculcated with certain
values that conflict with their personal beliefs. At issue is the fact that SSM will demand public
support and approval and not just tolerance. Some people will not be able to reconcile their
religious views that homosexual unions are immoral with the legal demand to support and
legitimize such unions. Conflicts will need to be resolved on a public scale (which will most
likely not be civil), and children will be caught in the middle between private/religious values
that are at odds with the public values. Some parents will sequester their children from society to
82
27
prevent these values from affecting their children.83 The effect will be a fracturing of society on a
potentially large scale, with children as the losers.84
Effects on males
Males need a healthy masculine identity. If males have an unhealthy identity they
tend to be destructive not only for men themselves but also for women, children, and thus for
society as a whole.85 Men are being systematically (though not necessarily intentionally)
removed as an essential component of society.86 SSM would only reinforce the idea that men are
not needed.87 Nathanson and Young note Over the past few decades, we have seen a resurgence
of machismo in its most toxic form. To many boys and men now, it seems clear that even a
negative identity is better than no identity at all. . . . Because fatherhood is the one remaining
source of a healthy masculine identity, legalizing gay marriage . . . would legitimate the notion
83
W e can see this today in the rise in private schools and the increase of homeschooling in America. From
1999 to 2007 homeschooling increased 74%. Fast Facts, http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91 (accessed
February 9, 2012). Private schooling in 2007 accounted for about 12% of all students up from 10% in 1993. Fast
Facts, http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=6 (accessed February 9, 2012). Here is an article from someone
living in Massachussets who disagrees with the states marriage laws notice the parallels mentioned in this essay,
W hat Same-Sex Marriage Has Done to Massachusetts,
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html (accessed February 22, 2012).
84
In regards to Christian religious education, I am convinced that so long as New Testament translations
identify homosexuality as a sin on the level of idolatry, there will be no peaceful resolution to the social issue.
85
86
Glorification of single-motherhood; the popularity of sperm banks; and the rise of other artificial
reproductive technologies sans males all reinforce the idea that men are unnecessary components of society.
87
Nathanson and Young. One side effect is that men who do not have a father in their life suffer
tremendously, but SSM will promote and encourage fatherless homes. Popenoe has noted that men without fathers
tend to be a danger to themselves and society. They are more prone to aggressive and violent behavior, they are more
promiscuous and tend towards drug use. In general, they tend to make up the majority of societal delinquents.
28
that fathers are unnecessary.88 If SSM passes it is not unreasonable to assume that the number of
absentee fathers will increase. Since society will no longer privilege a status that values the role
of a father, there will be no incentive to encourage male participation with their offspring. Since
society will consider men and women as interchangeable, there would be nothing inherently
valuable for children to be raised by both a male and female. Indeed, in a society preoccupied
with fairness for the adults, more public funding will be needed to go to families without fathers
to make up the economic shortfall. The role of fathers, which is already bleak, will continue to
worsen over time.89 Given the social ills that result from the epidemic of fatherlessness (both
for men and children), it seems unwise to adopt policies that reinforce this trend.90 While it is
wise not to increase the likely-hood of fatherlessness, it is not exactly clear what needs to be
done to reverse the trend. Would repealing no-fault divorce or adopting some pro-family/father
policies stem the tide? This is something I cannot answer.91
Anyone that disagrees with SSM will be punished

Ironically, should SSM pass, those that were once pleading for societal tolerance to their
chosen lifestyle, will become strongly intolerant to anyone that disapproves of their state
endorsed union. Teachers that refuse to legitimate SSM as being equal to traditional marriage
88
89
Ibid.
90
Gallagher, A Reality W aiting to Happen, 12.
91
Popenoe suggests a two-tier divorce system: 1) keep the current no fault divorce in place for couples
that do not have minor children; but 2) marriages with [minor] children would be dissolvable only by mutual
agreement or on grounds that clearly involve a wrong by one party against the other, such as desertion or physical
abuse. Longer waiting periods for divorcing couples with children might also be called for, combined with some
form of mandatory marriage counseling or marital education. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 130-131.
29
will be punished or fired. Because SSM will be a legally legitimate alternative, anyone publicly
opposed to SSM will be charged with hate speech and punished under the law.92 A few months
after legalizing SSM in Canada bill C-250 was passed which criminalizes any speech that does
not legitimize SSM.93 Any religious community that takes a stand against gay marriage is likely
to face public harassment, the hostility of popular culture, and so on.94 Peoples individual
convictions will be challenged by SSM and if they do not comply with what the law deems
acceptable, punishment will be doled out.
Academic research will be stunted

Not only will (grade) school teachers be punished if they do not teach the legitimacy of
SSM, but colleges and universities will be affected as well. It will be difficult to get grants to
research the effects of redefining marriage, and even if a grant is awarded, if the results do not
92
This is actually taking place in Canada. The Canadian Supreme court is considering whether religious
views on homosexuality violate Canadas hate speech laws. See Supreme Court of Canada Homosexual Hate
Speech Case Could Be Decisive for Religious Freedom,
www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-of-canada-anti-gay-hate-speech-case-could-be-decisive-for-rel/ (accessed
February 6, 2012). The same has happened in Sweden Free Speech in Sweden,
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/538 (accessed February 6, 2012) and the issue has come up in England (among
other places). See Ban on Anti-Gay Hate Speech Denounced as Thought Crimes in UK,
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98998 (accessed February 6, 2012).
This is an issue that is coming to the United States.
93
A Body Blow to Free Speech, National Post, May 19, 2004, A21. Quoted in Stanton and Maier, 42. See
also Hate Speech in Canada, http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm (accessed February 13, 2012).
94
Nathanson and Young. On a personal note, a friend of mine (Frank Turek) was fired as a consultant from
Cisco Systems and Bank of America because he holds a traditional view of marriage. His views on marriage were
never mentioned in his seminars and he always received very high marks for his work. A manager attending a
seminar googled his name, saw his writings, and complained to management. He was dismissed shortly thereafter.
Both Cisco and Bank of America have since apologized and stated that they were in the wrong, but neither has asked
him back (Bank of America says he is still in good standing, but until they reschedule a seminar, this is a mere
pleasantry). See Bank of America, Cisco Back Down After Firing Traditional Marriage Supporter,
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bank-of-america-cisco-back-down-after-firing-traditional-marriage-supporter/
30
line up with the popular notion that SSM is just as legitimate, then their research will be
considered discriminatory and it will be difficult to publish the results in peer reviewed journals.
This can be especially devastating to someone trying to achieve tenure. As the saying goes about
academia you publish or perish. As such, academics will be less likely to research this field as
to avoid censorship. Some academics have already been intimidated doing research in this area,
and there is no reason to think this would not continue. As Nathanson and Young point out If
sexual orientation were protected by hate laws, moreover, research would be shut down
altogether.95
Polarization of society
In line with the forgoing conversation, should SSM be legalized society will become
polarized, immediately in some areas and eventually in others. Immediately the effects will be
felt amongst religious communities that do not (can not?) approve of homosexual unions. It is
not farfetched to imagine that if these communities were forced to celebrate/participate and
condone such unions, that hostile reactions will result. If these communities are not allowed to
disapprove of these unions but are forced by law to perform ceremonies or face civil action,
would we not expect a less than warm reception to such laws? For at this point, it would not be a
matter of toleration of others values, but participation by force.96
While there could be the immediate polarization of society along moral and religious
lines, there is also the eventual threat of a polarization along biological lines. Nathanson and
95
96
31
Young hypothesize, If culture defines equality as sameness, then the most obvious way to create
it would be, in effect, to eliminate biological asymmetry.97 Men and women are biologically
different, hence, there is an inequality built-in (if you will) in our very biology. If this could be
bypassed, however, and if we could mitigate this inequality through technology, then this could
create a polarization in society based on biology alone. Should we develop a technology that can
simulate parthenogenesis (fertilizing an egg without the use of sperm) men would be cut from the
picture altogether. Likewise, if we develop an ex-utero technology or artificial womb, women
would not be needed either. Given that homosexual couples cannot naturally have children
between themselves, these technologies will eliminate the need for the other sex in the
procreation of children. Nathanson and Young lament, Stated in these terms, the prospect looks
less appealing than many people would have imagined; either eliminate one sex to create equality
or eliminate the distinctive feature of one sex to correct for the others biological inequality.98
Should this become a customary practice society will be fragmented in a way that has never
before occurred in history.
Special concessions will be given to same-sex couples from the government for reproduction
purposes
The most obvious difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples is
that on the whole, heterosexual couples can procreate. No homosexual couple will ever produce
97
Ibid., n.29.
98
Ibid.
32
children naturally.99 Now, a major push for SSM is on the grounds that it is not fair that
homosexuals cannot marry. That is, as a society, we value equality to such a degree that justice
virtually demands that homosexuals be allowed to marry.
This emphasis on equality and fairness, however, will result in government (i.e., tax
payer) funds being allocated to gay couples that cannot conceive children for the expressed
purpose of reproductive technologies. Why? Because it is not fair that only heterosexual
couples are able to produce children. Many homosexual couples that want children, but cannot
afford to go through adoption (or some other reproductive avenue like surrogacy), will petition
the government to cover the costs associated with adopting (or creating) a child. It is easy enough
for a lesbian couple to have a child sperm banks are readily available. But gay couples have
fewer (and more expensive) options. Because gay couples are differently situated in regards to
procreation, in fairness, the government owes them some concessions. Should the government
refuse, then this could be grounds for discrimination against gay couples. When gay men find
themselves with fewer reproductive possibilities than gay women, they will almost certainly file
charges of systematic discrimination against them.100
Reply to Some Arguments For Same-Sex Marriage

It is time to consider some popular arguments in favor of SSM, and provide comments.
The first argument to consider is that two loving people should have the right to have their union
legitimized by law. Next, the claim that SSM is the functional equivalent to infertile heterosexual
99
It could be argued that this one fact is proof enough that homosexual unions can never in fact be truly
equal with heterosexual unions. The ability to create new life has historically been a major and defining mark of what
identifies a marriage.
100
33
couples will be examined. The argument that children just need a loving and stable home, not
necessarily a heterosexual home is discussed next. Consideration for the charge that banning
SSM is discrimination follows. Lastly, the argument that SSM allows equality for all will be
investigated.
Love Between Two People Should be Celebrated

Much of the biographical literature promoting homosexual relationships in general (and
SSM in particular) deals in the rhetoric of love and acceptance, finding happiness and ones self,
and a general sense of hope for the future.101 There is a not-so subtle plea for the reader (and
society) to just accept them for who they are. Why cant everyone else just let them relish the fact
they have found someone with whom they want to spend their life? For the purposes of this
essay, why cant society recognize their commitment by allowing SSM? Theirs is a love to be
celebrated and promoted. Right?
Love certainly is something to be celebrated. It should not be taken for granted when we
find someone to share our most intimate thoughts and desires. We should cherish those moments
spent with someone who knows us better than we know ourselves. This is fine and good as far
as it goes. However, I am not yet convinced that a love two people share should necessarily have
the state sanction their union. The state as an institution for the benefit of its citizens must decide
101
For some examples of this biographical literature see, Chivas Sandage, Gay Marriage Takes Heart: One
Couples Story, in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 109-110; Barbara Cox, A (Personal) Essay on Same-Sex Marriage, in
Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 2004), 111-113; Lindsy Van Gelder, A Lesbian Family, in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral
and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 117-121;
and Jane Doe, I Left My Husband for the W oman I Love, in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed.
Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 123-127.
34
what best meets the needs for the society at large. Historically, what has been in the best interest
of the state is to legitimize, encourage, and privilege traditional marriage. The state needs
traditional marriage. The state does not need to celebrate traditional marriage, but it does
encourage it because it needs men and women to be united. Further, (as discussed above) the side
effects of legalizing SSM may be more than society can handle. Is society ready to debate the
merits of polygamy and incest? Could society provide Social Security checks to multiple spouses
as beneficiaries? Is society ready to levy lawsuits and fines (or jail time) against those who
disagree with SSM and speak openly about it?
Marriage is more than just about love. It is about obligation and commitment. Historically
and cross-culturally it was about having and raising children. Love and emotional gratification
are certainly one of its recent functions, but historically and cross-culturally love has not even
been relevant.102 It used to be thought that a couple could come to love each other, but it was not
love that initially made the marriage.
Same-Sex Marriage is No Different Than Infertile Heterosexual Couples

It is sometimes argued that homosexual couples are functionally equivalent to infertile
heterosexual couples.103 Just as society recognizes these infertile relationships, so too should
society recognize SSM.
While there is certainly some merit to this claim, it appears to be an oversimplification of
the issue. First, the norm for marriage is to produce children. This is what society expects to
102
Interestingly, this focus on the couples emotional needs coincides with the decline in birth rates in
W estern society. Nathanson and Young.
103
Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert
M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 205-206.
35
happen. Couples that do not produce children are not condemned by society, but they are most
definitely outside the norm. Remember, marriage is primarily for the generation and nurturing
of future citizens. Which in turn is primarily for communal needs, not individual needs.104
Second, in some traditions, the lack of children has been the exact grounds for divorce or
annulment. The norm for society is to have children, to be childless is the exception. And we
make laws based on the norms not the exceptions. To keep the norm for many childless
couples societies have sanctioned additional wives, concubines, surrogate mothers, or even
allowed wives of infertile men to sleep with fertile men. Our society in keeping with this trend
has surrogate mothers and sperm banks. But as Nathanson and Young state, These measures
mitigate the suffering of married people in unusual circumstances but not by undermining
marriage itself as the norm.105 SSM undermines (reproductive) marriage as the norm because it
is absolutely impossible a child would result from such a union, whereas in some childless
heterosexual couples there are no children by choice.
Third, even in cases where the heterosexual couple is simply infertile, they still play an
important role in the stabilization of society. They signify an institution that brings men and
women together. They symbolize the normative relationship by which society is able to survive.
As such, in one sense, yes same-sex couples are functionally equivalent to infertile couples
they both cannot produce children. In another sense, however, they are not functionally
equivalent in that they symbolize different types of relationships that interact with society.
Whatever benefit same-sex couples may offer society as a symbol, it is certainly not the same as
104
105
Ibid.
36
infertile couples that bring men and women together in a communal institution sanctioned by
society.106
Some Gay Couples Have Children, Besides Children Need Stability in Parents, Not Necessarily
Male and Female
Same-sex couples have children this is an undeniable fact. Some of these children are
from previous heterosexual relationships. Others have been adopted or acquired through some
reproductive technology. One thing is for sure, whether gay or straight, there is a general desire to
have a family and raise children. This topic is particularly interesting legally as many states argue
that same-sex couples are unfit to raise children. As such, it can be difficult for same-sex couples
to adopt or gain custody of biological children.107 Many opponents of SSM argue that
homosexual parents will lead to some sort of deviancy or disadvantage for children that are
raised in these households. The American Psychological Association (APA) has been consulted
in regard to the effects of same-sex couples and the children they raise. Charlotte Patterson
summarizes the results as follows:
There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or
that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is
compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study
has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect
relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that
home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by
heterosexual parents to support and enable childrens psychosocial growth.108
106
Ibid.
107
Charlotte J. Patterson, Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Summary of Research Findings in
Lesbian & Gay Parenting (W ashington, D.C.: APA Press, 2005), 65-70.
108
Ibid., 15.
37
This conclusion has been drawn from several researchers and the results seem absolute.109
By way of reply there are a couple of things to note. First, as even Patterson states in her
own report research on lesbian and gay parents and children . . . is still limited in extent.110 She
goes on to note that very little research has been done on children with gay fathers; nor is there
much research by way of the effects of gay parenting on adolescence and young adulthood;
finally, she notes the lack of longitudinal studies.111 Hence, while she is optimistic in regards to
the quality of parenting of same-sex couples (given the current data), she admits there is simply a
lack of information to have a full view of the situation.
The second thing to note is in regards to some of the studies Patterson utilizes to reach
her conclusion. Patrick Lee and Robert P. George comment that the studies show serious
methodological flaws such as small sample sizes, selective data subject to slanting,
unrepresentative samples, and (as Patterson herself noted) lack of longitudinal studies.112 The
studies cited by Patterson (and Salzman and Lawler) use (at most) several dozen individuals in
any given study, which is relatively small when compared with studies of at-risk children that
survey more than 34,000 individuals.113 Likewise, many of the studies cited by Patterson did not
measure clearly discernible data such as infant mortality rate, depression, school dropouts,
arrests, drug abuse etc. which are hallmarks of large-scale studies. Instead the studies relied on
109
Salzman and Lawler, 229-230, 319 n.82.
110
Patterson, 15.
111
Ibid.
112
Lee and George, 659.
113
Ibid.
38
subjective reporting, often based only on the parents recall.114 Other studies compared unlike
data. For example, some studies compared same-sex couples still living together, versus
heterosexual parents that were separated.115 Thus, the (lack of) quality data due to methodological
concerns seriously mitigates Pattersons optimistic conclusion.
This information should caution both opponents and proponents of SSM. First, all-in-all
the data regarding the quality of same-sex parenting and its effects on children is ambiguous at
this time. While what studies have been completed are promising for proponents of SSM, they
are wrong to point to this as conclusive proof that same-sex parenting is exactly the same as
heterosexual parenting.116 Likewise, opponents of SSM are wrong to assume that the data thus
gathered is wholly worthless (as some are wont to do).117 As such, a mediating position is to
recognize that more information and data is needed before a final decision can be made.
However, even though more data is needed, there are things we do know in regard to children
and parenting. It must be stated, that the issue here is not whether a same-sex couple can be
loving parents for their child(ren) it is generally agreed that they can. The issue is not can
children from a same-sex partnership become well adjusted and productive agents in society it
seems they can. The issue is are same-sex couples a good (acceptable?) option for raising
114
Ibid.
115
Ibid.
116
Same-sex parenting has more the hallmarks of step-families than traditional families, and as David
Popenoe has noted the presence of a surrogate parent (step-father or equivalent) is not the same as a biological father
regarding impact on children. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 126.
117
For example, the oft debated and quoted claims of University of Virginia sociologist Steven Nock who
testified via affidavit for Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada claimed all studies regarding same-sex parenting
had at least one serious flaw and none were conducted by standard research practices. Lee and George, 659.
39
children?118 Thus far, the answer appears to be yes. Homosexual parents may not be an ideal
situation for children, but it is certainly seems acceptable and many times good. Indeed, more
data is needed and it is not clear to what extent same-sex parenting compares to heterosexual
parenting (all things being equal).119 However, I hesitate to say that society should encourage
homosexual parenting the way that it needs to encourage heterosexual parenting by legal
incentives.120 I refer the reader above regarding argumentation that it is preferable for children to
have both a mother and a father.
Banning Same-Sex Marriage is Discrimination

It is not uncommon to see the claim that discrimination against SSM is the same as racial
discrimination in not allowing blacks and whites to marry. The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 in
Loving v. Virginia that racial discrimination in marriage was unconstitutional, likewise
118
This is a more nuanced claim than is normally made (i.e., are same-sex couples the best for children?).
Part of the problem here is that it is clear that many same-sex couples deeply love their children and are raising them
as best they can. As such, does society want to do away with a situation that is not ideal (like a heterosexual
couple) in order to preserve the ideal? In many ways, this seems unlikely given that a loving home (whether gay or
straight) is better than no home for adopted children. This is balanced against the larger message that homosexual
relationships are just as valuable for society as heterosexual relationships. How does an opponent of SSM balance
this? There is an obvious social need (children that need parents) and there is a proposed solution to that need (samesex couples wanting children). Society (as discussed above) has a vested interest, however, in prioritizing
traditional/natural families, but this does not rule out the possibility of allowing same-sex couples to raise children.
119
Popenoe agrees with this assessment. He notes that in heterosexual and homosexual relationships it
seems as though someone adopts the masculine and feminine roles in regards to children (the role can sometimes
switch, but it is still there). He further notes that we simply do not have enough data at this point to definitively say
whether this is beneficial or not. David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood
and Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1995), 147.
120
Popenoe notes does it make a difference whether or not the father is biologically related to the child?
According the available evidence, the answer is a resounding yes. Further, he notes the increased dangers for
children in homes with step-fathers. Popenoe, Life Without Father, 150. The implications of this regarding
homosexual parenting (which is closer to step-parenting) are obvious. Biological fathers are the preferred (but not
necessarily only) method for raising children. Again, more data is needed to have a more complete picture of the
situation.
40
discrimination against SSM is also unconstitutional and immoral.121
Interracial marriage is not the same as SSM. No one can change their race, but some
people have changed their sexual orientation.122 The fact that this has happened just once shows
the comparison between homosexuality and race is not exactly the same.123 No one has been able
to change their race no matter how hard they try. Indeed, the argument that SSM is the same as
interracial marriage is based on a reductive analogy it assumes that all those who oppose gay
marriage, like all those who oppose interracial marriage are bigots.124 While that may be true for
some people it certainly is not true for all. Further, as Nathanson and Young explain,
Marriage between people of different races was indeed banned in the American South
because of racism. But that was one example of a larger phenomenon [i.e., endogamy]. . .
. Endogamy cannot be considered a universal feature of marriage and should not,
therefore, be required by law in a diverse society. Marriage between men and women
really is a universal feature, both historically and anthropologically.125
In reality, the Loving case did not redefine marriage, rather it affirmed marriage. It affirmed that
historically and cross-culturally interracial marriage has happened and does happen. SSM, on the
other hand, seeks to do something that no society (until recently) has ever accepted on a massive
121
Dudley Rose, Same-Sex Marriage: The Theologies Can Vary, in Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and
Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004), 195-197.
122
I hesitate to make too much of this, but it should be noted that Columbia professor Robert L. Spitzer
concluded that it is possible for some homosexuals to become heterosexual. This is rare, but can happen. As such,
opponents to homosexuality/SSM make too much of Spitzers work when they overstate that all homosexuals can
become heterosexuals. Likewise, proponents of homosexuality/SSM make too little of his work by dismissing that
the people who switched orientations were never homosexual in the first place. Again, the middle road seems best.
Though (very) rare, it is possible for some (certainly not all) homosexuals to become heterosexual. Robert L. Spitzer,
Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change From
Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 (2003): 403-417.
123
Indeed, it should be remembered that many homosexuals throughout history married people of the
opposite sex and maintained families.
124
125
Ibid.
41
scale. Further, even if not allowing SSM were discrimination (and an evil), it may very well be
the lesser of two evils as opposed to allowing SSM. Strengthening traditional marriage will
stabilize society, but as argued above SSM will further weaken society. A stable society is good
for everyone gay and straight. Gay people have as much to lose as straight people, therefore,
by weakening [society].126
Same-Sex Marriage Allows Equality For All

Evan Wolfson shares multiple stories of same-sex couples denied (what seems to be) the
most basic of human courtesies, simply because they are unmarried.127 Couples (with children)
have been threatened with eviction. Parents are not allowed to pick a child up from school
because their partner is actually considered the legal guardian. Couples are denied pension, social
security, and health benefits all because they are in a same-sex relationship. This seems prima
facie unfair and unjust. Why cannot same-sex couples be treated equally under the law?
Everyone agrees equality is a good thing. Further, it needs to be acknowledged and
rectified that same-sex couples be accorded some basic dignity in relation to raising children and
housing. The examples listed by Wolfson are proper examples of something that should be
corrected.128 Does it therefore follow that same-sex couples be afforded the same status as
126
Ibid.
127
Evan W olfson, All Together Now, in Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D. W ardle,
mark Strasser, W illiam C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge (W estport, CT: Praeger, 2003), 3-4, 7-8, and Evan
W olfson, Enough Marriage to Share: A Response to Maggie Gallagher, in Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A
Debate eds. Lynn D. W ardle, Mark Strasser, W illiam C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge (W estport, CT:
Praeger, 2003), 25.
128
Though this must be balanced with the rights of others. For example, if a private apartment complex has
a policy that prohibits homosexual inhabitants (as silly a policy as that may be) it is the owners right to prohibit or
evict tenants that violate such a statute.
42
marriage? I submit that it does not. It is possible (though not necessarily easy) to alleviate the
conditions that give rise to the unacceptable actions taken against the couples mentioned by
Wolfson. It is often difficult to balance the needs of individuals with the needs of society, and the
fact remains that society needs to privilege and encourage heterosexual marriage.129
It is often stated, that homosexuals are treated equally and are allowed to marry so long
as they marry someone of a different gender. Though this statement is true, I think it has been
used disingenuously (by some opponents of SSM) and it has been completely ignored (by some
proponents of SSM). Some opponents of SSM make this statement as if it should end all debate
of the equality issue, and some proponents of SSM overstate their case in implying they cannot
get married absolutely. Given the contemporary debate and what is being sought, it is best to
recognize the statement is true as far as it goes, but it is greatly limited in what it proves. This
statement, though, does not have to devolve into a rhetorical stalemate. It is true in that
historically homosexuals have married members of the opposite sex and parented children,
though they carried-out their homosexual urges outside the home.130 As Nathanson and Young
point out Many people, both gay and straight, have married either partially or wholly for reasons
other than the idealized ones. . . . The fact is that these marriages, like others, can serve important
communal needs. At the very least, they affirm the symbolism of marriage as an institution that
brings men and women together in the interest of society as a whole.131
A stronger argument against SSM in relation to equality is to point out the logical
129
130
Ibid.
131
Ibid.
43
outcome of such argumentation. As noted above, if SSM is needed to promote equality and
fairness, then so too is polygamy and incest. American society may be able to stomach polygamy
(though it remains to be seen if our political/social structure can handle the demands of such
unions), but it does not seem likely that American society would be willing (at this point) to
welcome incestuous relationships. But, if the argument for the equality of SSM is to be followed
through, this is where it leads.132
The inconvenient fact of the matter is that homosexual unions can never be completely
equal to heterosexual unions. No homosexual union will ever bring forth children, but the (vast)
majority of heterosexual unions will. Society expects and needs heterosexual unions in order to
continue, but it does not need homosexual unions (though it can certainly allow for it). This,
however, does not mean that there needs to be systematic discrimination against homosexual
couples. Maggie Gallagher has argued that many of the benefits that homosexuals seek in
marriage are already available without marriage. She says:
The demand for same-sex-marriage befits is not likely based on filling a huge unmet need
for practical benefits. Children or adults are not being deprived of health care en masse
because law and social policies favor married couples over unrelated cohabitors. Instead,
the drive for same-sex-marriage appears to be a largely symbolic cultural issue; the goal
(or at any rate the main effect) is not filling a need for health insurance or other practical
benefits, but making a powerful social statement: Same-sex unions are the functional
equivalent of marriage, traditionally understood, and should be treated as such by law and
public policy.133
Surely as a society we can develop provisions and policies for many of the remaining inequalities
that acknowledge the particular living situation of same-sex couples but at the same time still
132
Ibid.
133
44
privilege traditional marriage since traditional marriage is what society needs.
Conclusion
Chesterton made the insightful point it is often said we cannot turn back the clock. But
The simple and obvious answer is You can. A clock can and should be turned back when it is
keeping bad time.134 In many ways marriage in America (and throughout the world) is keeping
bad time. Unfortunately for those in favor of traditional marriage, this clock is more like a
sundial and by its nature it cannot be turned back. At best the proponent of traditional marriage
can wait for the next day. American culture has already redefined marriage in practice, all that
remains is to ratify the redefinition through law. Proponents of traditional marriage will only win
the day if there is a massive cultural change that embraces the traditional view. This, however, on
the most optimistic time line would take several generations for the traditional understanding to
take root. This is no easy task, and may be impossible at this point. Given the tidal wave of
generation X, Y, and Z that overwhelmingly accepts homosexual behavior and the arguments for
SSM, when these persons take control of society in making laws and influencing policies, it is
(essentially) a forgone conclusion that SSM will happen. It is only a matter of time.135
As an outrageous proposal, before allowing SSM to become law, we should see how this
experiment works in countries that have already passed such laws. Let us evaluate the effects on
those societies before we irreversible affect this one. Had we been able to see forty years into the
future to see the destructive effects of no fault divorce, there may have been reconsideration
134
135
G. K. Chesterton, Whats Wrong With the World (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1918), 41.
W olfsan draws attention to various statistics that indicate this movement towards a cultural acceptance of
homosexual behavior as well as SSM. W olfson, All Together Now, 4-5.
45
before passing this well-intentioned-but-poorly-thought-out law. The obvious downside to this
proposal is that it will take about forty years to compile the necessary data to make appropriate
and sound judgments and most people will not stand to wait that long. Likewise, this proposal
will have the same emotional impact as telling a group of slaves to wait forty years so we can
determine what the effects of ending slavery will have upon society. This is not likely to
happen.136
The slippery-slope arguments used in this essay need to be tempered in that very few
predicted outcomes would be immediately felt. The vast majority of the arguments are dealing
with effects that will take multiple decades to become reality. Hence, if SSM were legalized
tomorrow, there are three areas I think would be almost immediately impacted: 1) the push for
polygamy; 2) the push to criminalize hate speech for anyone that does not agree with SSM; and
3) vocal (and possibly hostile) reaction from certain religious segments. Other than these three
areas, the arguments put forward by this essay would probably be decades before the full
implications of legalizing SSM would be realized at the societal level. I highly doubt legalizing
SSM would immediately usher in the apocalypse (contrary to some SSM opponents).
This essay has attempted to show that the arguments against SSM are at least reasonable.
I find myself in agreement with David Popenoe when he states:
136
On the other end of the spectrum, statistically very few homosexuals are affected by not being allowed to
marry. Even in provinces that allow SSM there is an initial jolt of same-sex unions, but these drop off significantly.
Indeed, the data we have thus far regarding the homosexual population that are allowed to marry shows that very few
choose to actually do so. In all areas assessed it is less that 20% of the homosexual population that gets married. As
such, policies are being promoted that will directly benefit less than 20% of less than 5% of the U.S. population (less
than 1% of the total population) but will have negative consequences for the future of our society. See Maggie
Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence From the United States, Canada, and
Europe, in iMAPP Policy Brief 3 (2006), http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf (accessed
February 22, 2012).
46
The position advocated here is that society should, in support of personal liberty, tolerate
a wide range of sexual practices, including homosexuality. In support of the family,
however, society should not necessarily affirm every aspect of homosexuality and the
homosexual lifestyle as the moral or social equivalent of heterosexuality. As the basis of
family life, and thus the key to both social order and societal continuation, heterosexuality
should continue to command a high status as a social value.137
At a time when society has some real issues that are directly related to the breakdown of
traditional marriage, we should not adopt policies that will further exacerbate the problem.
Traditional marriage should be strengthened at this point in time and SSM does not do that
despite cries to the contrary.138 Popenoe agrees,
Government policies should be designed to favor married, childrearing couples. Some
critics argue that the federal government should not involve itself in sensitive moral
issues or risk stigmatizing alternative lifestyles [or it should treat them all the same]. But
recognizing such alternatives does not require treating them as equivalent to marriage. . . .
A position on the need for children to have two committed parents, a father and a
mother, during their formative years is hardly . . . radical . . . .139
Opposition to SSM does not need to devolve into name calling, finger wagging, or any other such
vindictive behavior. Likwise, proponents of SSM do not need to shut down all dialogue by
resorting to ad hominem arguments and accuse all opponents of SSM as homophobic and
bigoted. Some are, but many are not. I recognize the emotional attachment people have to this
issue, but it is my hope we can have a modicum of civil discourse.
Finally, something must be said of the theological implications of the foregoing
discussion. It must be recognized that it is God who is in control of the flow of history. Whether
137
138
Marriage must be reestablished as a strong social institution. The fathers role must also be redefined in
a way that neglects neither historical models nor the unique attributes of modern societies, the new roles for women,
and the special qualities that men bring to childrearing. Popenoe, War Over the Family, 130.
139
Ibid., 131 (emphasis added).
47
SSM is legalized or not and whether SSM is moral or not, as a Christian I am convinced that
whatever the outcome God remains in control and works all things for the good to those called
according to His purposes in Christ (cf. Rom. 8:28). Societies are guided by the loving hand of
God, sometimes He raises them up and sometimes He brings them down. Our purpose as
believers and followers is not to be caught in the winds of change, but to be of sound character
and good will. In loving God and loving others we respond in action to what we believe God is
doing in the world. Regarding this debate, for proponents of SSM it is about honoring those who
share a special connection in love and how society needs to rejoice in that relationship. For
opponents to SSM it is about honoring an institution that they see as established by God for the
good of humanity and society. It is up to the individual to make their decision. For you do not
give an answer for your beliefs and actions to men, but to God who alone judges the heart.
Choose wisely.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, Barry D. Relationship Innovation in Male Relationships Sexualities 9 (2006): 5-26.
Bell, A. P. and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
Chesterton, G. K. The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic. New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1930.
. Whats Wrong With the World. New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1918.
Collett, Teresa Stanton. Should Marriage Be Privileged? The States Interest in Childbearing
Unions. In Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate. Eds. Lynn D. Wardle, mark
Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.
152-161.
Cox, Barbara. A (Personal) Essay on Same-Sex Marriage. In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral
and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books, 2004. 111-113.
Doe, Jane. I Left My Husband for the Woman I Love. In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and
Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 2004. 123-127.
Ford, Clellan S. and Frank A Beach. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, 1951.
Frayser, Suzanne G. Varieties of Sexual Experience: Anthropological Perspective on Human
Sexuality. New York: Human Relations Area File Press, 1985.
Gallagher, Maggie. A Reality Waiting to Happen: A Response to Evan Wolfson. In Marriage
and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate. Eds. Lynn D. Wardle, Mark Strasser, William C.
Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. 10-12.
. Normal Marriage: Two Views. in Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate. Eds.
Lynn D. Wardle, Mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge.
Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. 13-24.
48
49
and Joshua K. Baker, Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence From the United
States, Canada, and Europe. In iMAPP Policy Brief 3 (2006),
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf (accessed February 22,
2012).
George, Robert P. In Defense of Natural Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Janavira, Dharmachari.Homosexuality in the Japanese Buddhist Tradition.
www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/homosexuality.html (accessed February 6, 2012).
Kort, Joe. Are Gay Male Couples Monogamous Ever After?
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamo
us-ever-after (accessed February 13, 2012).
Kurtz, Stanley. The Libertarian Question: Incest, Homosexuality, and Adultery. In Same-Sex
Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. Eds. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004. 263-268.
Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social
Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago:University of
Chicago Press, 1994.
Lee, Patrick and Robert P. George. Quaestio Disputata: What Male-Female Complementarity
Makes Possible: Marriage as a Two-in-One-Flesh Union. Theological Studies 69 (2008):
641-662.
Maguire, Daniel. The Morality of Homosexual Marriage. In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral
and Legal Debate. Eds. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY:
McWhirter, David P. and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
Nathanson, Paul and Katherine K. Young. Marriage la mode: Answering the Advocates of
Gay Marriage. www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/mmmode.pdf (accessed January 30,
2012).
Patterson, Charlotte J. Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Summary of Research
Findings. In Lesbian & Gay Parenting. Washington, D.C.: APA Press, 2005.
Popenoe, David. Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage
are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1995.
50
. War Over the Family. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Pub., 2005.
Rinnert, Jim. The Trouble with Gay Marriage.
www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_trouble_with_gay_marriage (accessed January 31,
2012).
Rose, Dudley. Same-Sex Marriage: The Theologies Can Vary. In Same-Sex Marriage: The
Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY:
Sandage, Chivas. Gay Marriage Takes Heart: One Couples Story. in Same-Sex Marriage: The
Moral and Legal Debate ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY:
Salzman, Todd A. and Michael G. Lawler. The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic
Anthropology. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2008.
Spitzer, Robert L. Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200
Participants Reporting a Change From Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 (2003): 403-417.
Stanton, Glenn and Bill Maier. Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and
Parenting. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Sullivan, Andrew. Virtually Normal. In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate ed.
Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004. 205210.
Van de Ven, Paul, Pamela Rodden, June Crawford, and Susan Kippax. A Comparative
Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men. Journal of Sex
Research 34 (1997): 349-360.
Van Gelder, Lindsy. A Lesbian Family. In Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate
ed. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.
117-121.
Wiederman, Michael W. Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey.
Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 167-174.
Wolfson, Evan. All Together Now. In Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D.
Wardle, mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge. Westport, CT:
Praeger, 2003. 3-9.
51
. Enough Marriage to Share: A Response to Maggie Gallagher. In Marriage and SameSex Unions: A Debate eds. Lynn D. Wardle, mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and
David Orgon Coolidge. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. 25-32.
Ban on Anti-Gay Hate Speech Denounced as Thought Crimes in UK.
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98998
Bank of America, Cisco Back Down After Firing Traditional Marriage Supporter,
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bank-of-america-cisco-back-down-after-firing-traditio
nal-marriage-supporter/ (accessed February 22, 2012).
A Body Blow to Free Speech, National Post, May 19, 2004, A21. Quoted in Glenn Stanton
and Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004)
Fast Facts. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=6 (accessed February 9, 2012).
Fast Facts. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91 (accessed February 9, 2012).
Fertility Rate.
www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=
country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=total+fertility+rate+united+states#ctype=l&strail=false&
bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim
=country:USA:CAN&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en (accessed February 4, 2012).
Fertility Statistics.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Fertility_statistics
Free Speech in Sweden. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/538 (accessed February 6,
2012).
Hate Speech in Canada. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm (accessed February
13, 2012).
HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM).
www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/pdf/msm.pdf (accessed January 29, 2012).
National Vital Statistics Report. Vol. 60. Num. 1
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table16 (accessed February 13,
2012).
52
Same-Sex Couple Households. www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf (accessed
January 29, 2012).
Sister Wives Lawsuit: Federal Judge Rules TV Family Can Question Bigamy Statute.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/sister-wives-law-suit-bigamy_n_1255622.html
Supreme Court of Canada Homosexual Hate Speech Case Could Be Decisive for Religious
Freedom.
www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-of-canada-anti-gay-hate-speech-case-could-b
e-decisive-for-rel/ (accessed February 6, 2012).
What Same-Sex Marriage Has Done to Massachusetts,
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html (accessed February
22, 2012).

Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage-Libre

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage-Libre

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SOME ARGUMENTS TO CONSIDER IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE:

WHY THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MARRIAGE SHOULD BE PRESERVED

SOME ARGUMENTS TO CONSIDER IN THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE:

Nathanson and Young, n.6.

Individualism has . . . come to mean . . . anything goes, Ibid.

Nathanson and Young.

Some Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Nathanson and Young.

Same-Sex Marriage Alters the Meaning of Marriage

SSM opens the door to polygamy and incest

See Suzanne G. Frayser, Varieties of Sexual Experience: Anthropological Perspective on Human

Dharmachari Janavira, Homosexuality in the Japanese Buddhist Tradition

Nathanson and Young.

Lee and George, 654-655.

Monogamy will be abandoned or at least re-defined

Alters the Benefits of Marriage

National Vital Statistics Report http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf#table16

Marriage brings society together

Nathanson and Young.

Nathanson and Young.

Nathanson and Young.

Gallagher, A Reality W aiting to Happen, 12 (emphasis added).

Gallagher, Normal Marriage, 16.

Lee and George, 661.

Nathanson and Young.

Nathanson and Young.

Other Possible Negative Effects of Allowing Same-Sex Marriage

Nathanson and Young.

Nathanson and Young, n.28.

Nathanson and Young.

Anyone that disagrees with SSM will be punished

Nathanson and Young.

Gallagher, A Reality W aiting to Happen, 12.

Academic research will be stunted

Nathanson and Young, n.28.

Nathanson and Young.

Reply to Some Arguments For Same-Sex Marriage

Nathanson and Young, n.30.

Love Between Two People Should be Celebrated

Same-Sex Marriage is No Different Than Infertile Heterosexual Couples

Nathanson and Young.

Salzman and Lawler, 229-230, 319 n.82.

Lee and George, 659.

Banning Same-Sex Marriage is Discrimination

Nathanson and Young.

Same-Sex Marriage Allows Equality For All

Nathanson and Young.

Gallagher, Normal Marriage, 20.

Popenoe, War Over the Family, 81.

Ibid., 131 (emphasis added).

Você também pode gostar