Responding to Those Who Support
Same Sex Marriage

  
Why Are We Arguing About This?
There are many Christians who simply don’t understand why believers would even be involved in the discussion of same sex marriage. Some of us, as Christ followers, have simply not examined the issue carefully and haven’t even come to a conclusion related to its merits or shortcomings. In addition to those undecided, there are Christians who are adamantly divided on the topic, some supporting same sex marriage and others resisting the institution altogether.

From a Christian perspective, there is good reason to believe that same sex marriages violate the teaching of God as described in the Bible (more on that HERE); there’s good reason to believe that the God of the Bible does NOT support the idea of same sex marriage. But even when we examine the issue from a secular understanding of the role of government and the role of marriage within our society, there is also good reason to oppose same sex marriage (more on that HERE).

Responding to the Common Arguments
Those of us who oppose same sex marriage for practical, philosophical and theological reasons are often bombarded with arguments from those who support the idea. Is our position valid and can it withstand the scrutiny and attack of counter-arguments? Let’s address some of the common arguments presented by those who support the idea of same sex marriage:

 
ARGUMENT: It’s Unloving to Deny Loving Same Sex Couples the Opportunity to Marry One Another
Isn’t a marriage simply a relationship between two people? How does any marriage hurt society or people who are not involved in the marriage? It is a personal commitment of love and it’s really is no one else's business. Society shouldn't dictate what two people can or can't do if no one else is hurt in the process. Homosexuals want to marry because it is the ultimate expression of their love for another, and marriage is a commitment that says “I love you so much that I want to live the rest of my life with you; I want to share the ups and downs, forsake all others, and be together until death do us part.” It’s unloving and intolerant for society to try to deny homosexuals the ability to marry.

 
Response:
Marriage is more than a relationship, it is an institution. No one is suggesting that we prohibit loving relationships, but denying homosexuals the ability to be ‘married’ is not the same as denying homosexuals the opportunity to love one another.

 
We live in a representative government that has the difficult job of trying to protect the freedoms of individuals within the society. Homosexuals certainly have the freedom to love one another, and our laws do not prohibit these kinds of relationships. But there is a difference between ‘allowing’ and ‘endorsing’. Many of us may love a particular person or lifestyle, but the government is not obliged to endorse our love for this particular person or lifestyle. It is not unloving for our government and society to deny a public endorsement of something, even though some of us may care deeply about the very thing we would like endorsed.

 
Response:
The vast majority of homosexuals (even those who see themselves as ‘loving’) are NOT interested in marriage. Those few who ARE interested in committed relationships have the opportunity to engage in such relationships. This kind of loving commitment does not necessitate marriage.

 
It’s not as though the homosexual community speaks with one mind on the issue of same sex marriage. The vast majority of homosexuals DON’T want to be involved in same sex marriages (more on that below). The statistics repeatedly demonstrate that most homosexuals are not interested in participating in same sex marriages, yet they also indicate in large majorities that they support same sex marriage laws. Why would homosexuals want the laws yet resist being part of the resulting institution? It’s because homosexuals are less interested in the issue of ‘love’ than they are in the issue of ‘approval’.

 
Response:
Our desire to love adults who want to live a certain way, must be measured against our responsibility to love the children who are being raised n our society. We simply cannot jeopardize a very large subset of our culture in order to demonstrate our love for a tiny minority within the culture.

 
All of us, as citizens on our country, must make appropriate and loving decisions that result in our being able to do the most good for as many people as possible, while doing the least harm to as many people as possible. We all must find ways to maximize the good, while minimizing the harm. Can we really call ourselves loving if we seek to recognize same sex marriages for the sake of homosexuals, if doing so actually harms the wellbeing of children who are raised in these marriages? We have to weigh the benefits against the disadvantages, and in the case of same sex marriage, the harm caused to children simply outweighs any benefit or advantage that may be experienced by homosexuals who want their relationships to be formally recognized.

 
ARGUMENT: It’s Unjust to Deny Same Sex Couples a Right (Marriage) That Is Afforded to Others
Homosexuals deserve the same equality as heterosexuals. Marriage is a legal ‘right’ and we cannot justly deny this right to homosexuals on the basis of sexual preference alone. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt once said:

 
“The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which 'the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race' are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs”. (Hannah Arendt, Dissent, Winter 1959)

 
The Massachusetts Supreme Court seemed to affirm this basic human right when it decided in favor of same sex marriage and argued:

 
“Without the right to marry--or more properly, the right to choose to marry--one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship.”

 
Because marriage is a ‘fundamental human right’, any effort to deny that right on the basis of sexual orientation is unjust. 

 
Response:
While individuals may have a right to engage in an emotional and physical relationship with another consenting adult, a licensed, authorized, and publicly approved ‘marriage’ is a privilege like other licensed privileges.

 
Marriage is NOT a ‘right’; it is a governmentally granted ‘privilege’. Individuals have the right to engage in a loving relationship with another consenting adult; these kinds of relationships are private and should not be controlled by the government. But once the relationship impacts the larger society, it is appropriate for government to make decisions regarding the wellbeing of the culture and then license what it believes is worthy. Marriage is such a license.

 
As an example, you and I have the right to drive our cars all over our personal property without the benefit of a governmentally authorized license. Imagine that you have a ten year old son who loves to drive the family truck. You allow him to drive this truck all over your 1,000 acre ranch, and you certainly have the right to do so. All of us have the right to drive on our own property, even if we don’t possess a license! But the moment your son wants to take that truck on the open public roads, we, as a society, ought to have the authority to evaluate, authorize and license his driving ability. Your son doesn’t have the ‘right’ to drive on the public street without the privilege of a license, and our society has decided that there are some people who we simply will not privilege with a license. Your son cannot then argue that he is being denied the human right to drive!

In a similar way, homosexual couples certainly have the right to love one another in the privacy of their own homes, and we are not suggesting that this right should be removed or denied. But once any couple decides that it wants the society’s public approval and license, it is moving beyond a private right and toward a public privilege. Just as with the driver’s license, the society has the authority to decide what is in the best interest of the culture at large. The society has the right to license, approve and privilege what is otherwise a private activity and right.

 
Response:
When we create a ‘right’ for something that is actually a ‘privilege’, we inevitably destroy a true ‘right’ somewhere else in the society. For this reason, we simply must not bestow a privileged status to something that is NOT a ‘right’

 
If we grant same sex couples the status of marriage, we will inevitably initiate a domino effect of policy and social changes within our government that will adversely impact the true rights of other groups. A governmentally enforced recognition of same sex marriage will, first and foremost, conflict with the religious freedom currently afforded citizens of our country. As an example, a wedding photographer in New Mexico was threatened with a hearing before the New Mexico Human Right Commission simply because she refused to accept the business of a lesbian couple because she didn’t want to photograph their commitment ceremony. In addition, the archdiocese of Boston recently closed its adoption program because the state of Massachusetts required that every adoption agency must allow same-sex couples to adopt. A Methodist group in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. A Mennonite school in Quebec is relocating to another province because it is being forced to use public curriculum that teaches and approves the homosexual lifestyle. Over and over again, state recognition and legalization of same sex unions and partnerships results in the eventual deprivation of a previously held religious freedom.

But beyond religious freedom, the recognition and approval of same sex marriage as a ‘right’, inevitably impacts a right that we already recognize on the part of children. In 1989, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) convened to create the foremost and foundational human rights document related to the rights of children across the globe. The 1989 UNICEF “Convention on the Rights of the Child” specifically guarantees children the right to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. Article 7 of the Convention states that children have the “right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” If we are going to honor this internationally recognized human right, we’re going to have to do everything we can to strengthen traditional families, the one place where this right is possible.

That being said, our culture seems to be moving farther and farther from respecting the role and position that traditional marriage ought to have in the life of children. Our government is beginning to intervene to cause people to believe that same sex marriage is NO different than traditional marriage. California has already moved to make sure that public schools are “gay friendly”, doctors have been sued for refusing to artificially inseminate lesbian couples, and private religious schools are being challenged when they try to promote traditional marriage and heterosexual relationships exclusively. It seems that people who used to have religious freedom to express what they believe are rapidly losing that right as the state intervenes to make sure that society accepts same sex unions as though they are equivalent to traditional heterosexual marriages.

Schools, businesses, churches, and charities are now being threatened with lawsuits unless they step away from their religious conviction and embrace the ‘diversity’ of homosexuality. When we grant a ‘privilege’ (the privilege of a state recognized same sex marriage) the status of a ‘right’, we quickly cause other previously held rights to be compromised.

 
Response:
Our society already demonstrates the fact that marriage is NOT a ‘right’. Many groups are excluded from the opportunity to marry based on what the government believes is detrimental to the children and to society at large. Same sex couples simply fall into this category of excluded groups.

 
Every state in America has laws on its books that prohibit some groups from being able to marry. In California, for example, Penal Code Section 281(a) states that “Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries any other person is guilty of bigamy”. It is against the law for me to marry someone who is already married to another man. But what if all three of us came before the court and said that we were all in agreement and wanted to be married? Could we argue that we have the inherent ‘right’ to be married? It seems that the law already operates as though marriage is not a right, but a privilege granted with some limitations.

Most states, for example, also limit the ability of people to marry within their own family. California Penal Code Section 285 prohibits marrying immediate family members: “Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who being 14 years of age or older, commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.” And Arizona Statute A.R.S. § 25-101(A) says that "Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one-half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void." What would happen if a father and daughter came before the court and said tht they wanted to ‘right’ to marry one another? What if they said that they had been separated from the time of the daughter’s birth and didn’t even know they were father and daughter until very recently? Couldn’t they argue that it is their ‘right’ to marry whomever they please? The state already recognizes that marriage is NOT a right at all, but a privilege that is granted to some, and denied others.

 
Response:
In many states, legal rights are granted to homosexual couples to the same degree that they are granted to heterosexual married couples. Since no intrinsic legal rights are being denied, it simply cannot be argued that denying the title of ‘marriage’ denies a human ‘right’.

 
Homosexual couples argue that they should be allowed the same legal rights that are afforded married couples (i.e. (1) the right to file taxes jointly, (2) the automatic inheritance of property from a deceased spouse, (3) the right to share the medical policy of a spouse, (4) the right to access veterans’ spousal benefits and preferences, (5) the equitable division of property at the time of divorce, (6) the right to temporary or permanent alimony, (7) the right to bring claims for the wrongful death of a mate, (8) the right to be acknowledged as the legitimate parent of children, (9) the prohibition against having to testify against a mate in a court of law, (10) the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated mate, and (11) the right to apply rules of child custody at the time of divorce). In fact, homosexual couples often argue that their efforts to obtain these rights are the motive for their desire to have government recognize and legalize same sex marriages. But many states already recognize these rights within the context of same sex civil unions and partnerships, even without the legalization of same sex ‘marriages’.

In California in 2008, controversy raged over the passage of “Prop 8” which limited ‘marriage’ to the traditional legal union of a man and a woman. Opponents to Prop 8 argued that same sex marriage should be legalized in California as a matter of equality. But California already has a statute in place (California Family Code 297.5) that ensures that registered domestic partners (either current, former of surviving) “have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” Based on this statute, there already existed equality between traditional marriages and domestic partnerships in the areas that we’ve described. So what were homosexual advocates trying to achieve by defeating Prop 8? The only issue at stake was the title, “marriage”! Why were opponents to Prop 8 so interested in the word when they already had the rights? While many same sex advocates may say that it’s all about ‘rights’, it actually appears to be more about acceptance and endorsement. The fight for the word ‘marriage’ is an effort to convince a culture that same sex marriage is no different than traditional marriage, even though the statistics clearly demonstrate that this is not the case.

 
Response:
Homosexual activists aren’t concerned with rights; they are concerned with complete societal endorsement of their behavior. Homosexuals want the society to stop telling them that what they are doing is ‘wrong’ so they can feel better about what they are doing:

 
Many homosexual advocates (and many homosexuals themselves) are honest about this goal:

 
“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights... To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games....At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing...then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won” (The Overhauling of Straight America, Guide Magazine, November 1987)

 
“We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives” (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.)

 
“The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion” (Advocate, 1985.)

 
Response:
If marriage was really a universal legal ‘right’ available to anyone and everyone who desired it, the institution of marriage would have to be redesigned as a contract available to ANY group of parties no matter what kind of alliance they might choose.

 
If consenting adults have the universal legal ‘right’ to be married, is this ‘right’ then extended to any and all combinations of consenting adults? Why are we, for example, limiting the number of adults that can be united in marriage? Why are we restricting adult siblings from marrying one another? Why are we restricting parents and adult children from marrying one another (especially if they agree in advance NOT to have children, thereby eliminating the fear of genetic deformities)? If marriage is a universal legal right, we will need to redesign the contract to include ANY grouping of consenting adults.

 
ARGUMENT: It’s Illogical to Favor “Bad” Heterosexual Marriages Over “Good” Same Sex Marriages
It’s silly to pretend that marriage is some kind of ‘sacred institution’; there are plenty of dysfunctional heterosexual marriages in our society. Just because a relationship is sanctioned by the government, it doesn’t mean that the relationship will be healthy or beneficial to children. It’s illogical and unfair to deny homosexuals who are involved in ‘good’ relationships the opportunity to be married when there are so many ‘bad’ heterosexual marriages in our country. There are innumerable legally sanctioned and recognized heterosexual marriages that include child molesters, drug addicts, alcoholics and wife beaters! Why do we allow ‘bad’ heterosexual relationships to be called ‘marriages’ even as we deny this opportunity to homosexuals involved in ‘good’ relationships?

 
Response:
If we are going to evaluate and compare the nature of heterosexual and homosexual relationships based on their use of drugs and alcohol or the rate of violence and abuse, the statistical data is NOT going to favor homosexual unions. And to compare marginal subsets within each group is illogical.

 
This would be the equivalent of saying, “There are some ten year olds who can drive better than some 40 year olds, so we ought to start licensing 10 year olds!” While there will always be exceptions and isolated anomalies in any group, but we don’t focus on the exceptions to evaluate the nature of the larger group! When we examine the nature of heterosexual unions and homosexual unions, it’s fair for us to examine the two groups from the perspective of their majority features, not from the isolated exceptions on either side. It’s common and acceptable for our government to consider the larger group when trying to assess what it should or shouldn’t do related to that group. This is why the government creates laws related to minors, for example, even though there may be exceptions within the population of minors who are not in need of these laws.

It is statistically clear that children who are raised with two biological parents are far better off than children in any other kind of family unit. Children who are raised by both their biological parents are statistically less likely to be involved in ‘delinquent’ behavior, to drop out of school, to be unemployed, to use drugs in adolescence, to be involved in crime, to become pregnant as teenagers, to be poor, or to be sick. This is the clear truth about two biological parent family units (the larger group), even though there may be isolated instances in which this is not the case. But more importantly, it is also clear that same sex unions are statistically more violent, abusive, unfaithful, unhealthy and temporary (more on this HERE). It is fair and natural for government to evaluate the nature of the larger group when establishing laws.

 
Response:
It’s not as though our laws are completely blind with regard to problematic traditional marriages. It’s not as though the government ignores the possibility that evil people might be involved in marriages; the government does its best to protect children in this situation. Our laws are written to deal harshly with wife beaters and child molesters (for example); these kinds of people are denied their freedom altogether. We don’t need to rely on the governmental authorization of “marital status” in order to accomplish what the law already mandates.

 
Homosexual advocates often argue that the government does nothing to prevent child molesters, child abusers, drug addicts, or neglectful parents from marrying or having children. At the same time, the government seems to be unfairly isolating same sex marriages on the basis that these marriages are “less-than-absolutely-ideal” from the perspective of parenting. This seems unfair.

But remember that the government is not trying to limit or prohibit same sex relationships; it simply does not want to endorse same sex marriages as an ideal. In a similar way, government would not want to endorse traditional marriages in which violence, abuse, addiction and neglect are present. Government not only discourages such bad relationships, but it actively works to eliminate them by incarcerating members of these kinds of relationships! The laws are written to place individuals in jail when they participate in violent acts, drug use, or negligence. These convicted felons lose their freedom, their contact with the family unit, and often lose their future contact with minor children within that family unit. Government is not blind to those traditional marriages that are ‘bad’ as often described by homosexual advocacy groups.

 
ARGUMENT: It’s Unwise to Deny Same Sex Marriages Because It’s Better for Homosexuals to Marry Than Remain Unmarried
One of the primary arguments against same sex marriage is the claim that it would erode family values, but the opposite is true. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up the kind of lifestyle that homosexuals are often criticized for having. Married partners understand that they have committed themselves to on another. If more homosexuals were married there would be less promiscuity in the homosexual community

 
Response:
This argument presumes that homosexuals behave the way they behave because they are not able to marry one another. But many studies indicate that the promiscuous sexual lifestyle of homosexuals is NOT curbed by same sex marriage. Homosexuals bring their proclivities and desires into the marital relationship and the statistics demonstrate that marriage, in and of itself, is not capable of changing the promiscuous or risky behavior of homosexuals.

 
Homosexual marriage has been legal in some European countries for many years. In Norway and Sweden, where same sex marriages have been available for nearly 20 years, male homosexuals are about 50% more likely to divorce (than their heterosexual counterparts) and female homosexuals are about 200% more likely to divorce. To make matters worse, same sex partners were MORE likely to divorce if children were part of the family unit! (Andersson G, Noack T, Seierstad A, Weedon-Fekjaer H., “Divorce-risk patterns in same-sex ‘marriage’ in Norway and Sweden”, PAA2004 Annual Meeting, Boston 4/13/04). Over and over again, we see that those same sex marriages that do exist across the globe exhibit the same characteristics as same sex unmarried partnerships. These marriages are more abusive, unhealthy, unfaithful and temporary that their heterosexual counterparts, and they mirror the behaviors that we see in the unmarried homosexual community.

 
Response:
Homosexuals don’t even believe that it’s better for them to be married than unmarried! Most homosexuals have no desire to be married in the first place, so providing them with legal status does not guarantee that the homosexual community will embrace the opportunity in the first place.

 
In Denmark, where a form of same sex marriage has been legal since 1989, statistics reveal that less than 3% of Danish homosexuals choose to be married in the first place. (Wockner R Advocate, Issue 726, February 4, 1997, Cameron P, Cameron K, Playfair WL, “Does homosexual activity shorten life?” Psychol Rpts 1998, 83:847-866). Similarly, only 3% of homosexuals choose to be married in Norway and Sweden (Andersson G, Noack T, Seierstad A, Weedon-Fekjaer H., “Divorce-risk patterns in same-sex ‘marriage’ in Norway and Sweden”, PAA2004 Annual Meeting, Boston 4/13/04). We see this pattern continue at other places across the globe. In a survey conducted in Australia, researchers found that only 5.1% of male homosexuals and 10.3% of female homosexuals expressed an unmitigated interest in any kind of commitment ceremony or formalization of their relationship (Marion Pitts, Anthony Smith, Anne Mitchell, Sunil Patel, “Private Lives: A Report on the Health and Wellbeing of GLBTI Australians”, Australian Research Centre in Health and Society, 2004). And in addition to this, researchers have examined the behavior of homosexuals in those places where same sex marriage is already legal (The Netherlands, Belgium, and the state of Massachusetts), and have discovered that only 1.9 to 4.7% of Belgium’s gay population have married, only 5.9 to 16.7% of Massachusetts’ gay population have married, and only 2.6 to 6.3% of the Dutch gay population has married. (Maggie Gallagher & Joshua K. Baker, “Demand for Same Sex Marriage: Evidence from the United States, Canada and Europe”, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy Vol. 3, No. 1, April 26, 2006).

 
Homosexuals, by and large, WANT same sex marriage to be legal, yet overwhelmingly choose NOT to be involved in same sex marriages! Why is this so? One study involving 2,000 American and European homosexuals in the 1960s, found that “living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not.” (Weinberg MS, Williams C. J., “Male homosexuals: their problems & adaptations”, New York, Penguin, 1975).

 
Homosexuals most often live by themselves not because the law prohibits same sex marriage, but because the single life is a matter of CHOICE. The sexual freedom of being single is the foremost desire of most surveyed homosexuals, and this proclivity to sexual freedom and experimentation is not curbed by the availability of same sex marriage.

 
As an example of this, a 1970 study in San Francisco found that approximately 61% of make homosexuals and 37% of female homosexuals were living alone. (Bell AP, Weinberg M.S., “Homosexualities”, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1978). And a very recent poll conducted by the homosexual magazine “Fab” (published in April of 2008) found that only 36% of homosexuals believed that homosexuals should “settle for marriage and nothing less.” 47% of those polled (the plurality) actually favored civil unions. As a result of this poll, “Fab” Magazine editor-in-chief Mitchel Raphael said, “Fear exists in the gay community that marriage will be used as means to clean up its overt, institutionalized sex culture.” Raphael was honest enough to recognize the sexual proclivities of homosexuals and admit that these proclivities are inconsistent with the institution of marriage. He admitted that, “there are practical reasons for gays to adopt a different and equal partnership model. It is not uncommon for gay men, for instance, to discuss whether a relationship should be monogamous.” Many homosexual men simply find the institution of marriage to be ‘oppressive’ because it attempts to limit the number of sex partners they can have. Perhaps this is why 11% of those surveyed in this “Fab” poll actually said that homosexuals should refuse “to buy into the heterosexist, oppressive institution of marriage” and 7% said that homosexuals should “help lead a movement to abolish the institution of marriage.”

 
According to Raphael, many homosexuals would prefer to use a different term for same sex unions in order to avoid the limits implied by the term, ‘marriage’: “Choosing a new term for same-sex couples uniting means gays can create their own rules for partnership with all the rights of traditional marriage but without its baggage of eternal monogamy and 50 percent divorce rates.” This is affirmed anecdotally by the famous singer (and open homosexual), Elton John, who in November of 2008 said, “I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

  
Response:
Thousands of homosexual couples have already been ‘married’ in private ceremonies all across the nation. They experienced a wedding ceremony and made vows to one another in front of their friends and family. Yet these are the same sex unions from which all the negative data has been extracted. Why should be believe that adding state approval to the union will actually change the behavior of homosexuals when publicly witnessed vows and commitment ceremonies have not?

 
Homosexuals often say that the kind of promiscuity, instability and violence we see in homosexual un-married relationships would be transformed if only they were allowed to legally marry. Yet many of the homosexual relationships measured in studies and surveys ARE already married in some form of social or religious ceremony. There are hundreds of organizations and businesses in America that specialize in same sex weddings. In addition to this, there are dozens of religious institutions and denominations that recognize and perform same sex weddings. These weddings are performed in front of family and friends and they include marital vows. If these options are available for same sex couples, and the statistics still demonstrate that same sex unions are as unstable and promiscuous as they are, why would the legal marital status change any of this? The addition of legal status will not change what marital vows hove so far been unable to achieve.

 

ARGUMENT: It’s Wrong to Oppose Same Sex Marriage Because to Do So Is the Equivalent of Opposing Interracial Marriage
People who argue against same sex marriage today are no different than people who argued against interracial marriage in the past. People used to argue that interracial marriages would harm children, send the wrong moral message and devalue the institution of marriage. Just as this kind of prejudice was wrong in the past, it is wrong once again.

 
Response:
All of us would agree that we should not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex or national origin, but this classic cultural ideal is focused on intrinsic personal qualities and not BEHAVIORS. As a society, we already distinguish on the basis of behavior and we have no hesitation in doing so. Our prohibition of same sex marriage has nothing to do with a distinction related to intrinsic qualities like race or national origin, but instead distinguishes on the basis of behavior and this is completely appropriate.

 
Our government has laws that prevent people from discrimination that is based on INTRINSIC PHYSICAL QUALITIES, or those characteristics and attributes that cannot be controlled by the individual. You and I cannot control our skin color, our sex, our race or our national origin. These are innate characteristics that are simply beyond our control, and that’s why it is unfair to discriminate against someone on the basis of something he or she cannot change, even if they wanted to. But behavior is another issue altogether. Behaviors are the one thing that we CAN control, and that’s why our government has ALWAYS distinguished people on the basis of how they behave. Our laws, for example, define and separate people on the basis of behavior. If your conduct is worthy, for example, you’ll soon find yourself arrested and placed in jail! Our laws limit freedoms and direct conduct on the basis of behavior and none of us complain that this is an unfairly discriminating process. In addition, the private sector extends this approach in other areas. Have you ever been asked personal questions on a job application? Have you ever been asked what your hobbies are, if you have the ability to perform a certain task, or if you have ever been arrested? Do you think this information was then evaluated and considered when they hired you? All of us have no problem distinguishing and considering people on the basis of their behavior, particularly if that behavior is harmful to society and can be demonstrated.

 
It was never fair to prohibit people on the basis of intrinsic qualities, but that is not what we are doing when we prohibit homosexuals from being legally married. Homosexual behavior is a choice, and it is fair for the society at large to distinguish between behaviors when deciding what it will or will not publicly endorse. Some homosexuals will argue that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition and therefore it is an intrinsic quality, but a genetic predisposition (even if we were to include sexual orientation, drug or alcohol abuse) is a far cry from a genetic predetermination (like the color of one’s eyes). Our government has the authority and obligation to distinguish between harmful and un-harmful behaviors if there is sufficient evidence to make the case. Once an individual’s behavior adversely effects another, it is fair for us to distinguish between behaviors and promote the best possible scenario for society at large.

 
Response:
There is a difference between same sex unions and traditional opposite sex marriages and it is not prejudice or bigotry to recognize this difference.

 
While all of us would agree that homosexuals have equal value and equal rights as individuals, this has nothing to do with whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry. We simply have to be honest when we evaluate the value of marriage to our society. If all same sex relationships were eliminated from our society, there would be NO impact on our society. On the other hand, if all traditional opposite sex relationships were eliminated from our society, there would be no society at all. There is a value difference between same sex relationships and opposite sex relationships and this difference is marked by the word “marriage”.

 
Response:
Even those who have suffered prejudice on the basis of intrinsic personal qualities, reject the idea that opposition to same sex marriage can be compared to some form of racism.

 
Homosexuals often compare themselves to African Americans or other minority groups who have suffered unfair discrimination. But these groups, who have suffered discrimination on the basis of intrinsic physical characteristics they couldn’t control, understand the difference here. They understand that it’s both dishonest and offensive for homosexuals to define themselves based on their sexual behavior and then compare this conduct to an ‘immutable’ and ‘innocuous’ trait such as skin color. Perhaps this is why many black Americans would caution homosexuals: “Don't compare your sin to my skin”. While the debate about whether homosexuality is a sin is another issue altogether, it is clearly illogical to compare behavior to intrinsic skin color. African Americans like Ken Hutcherson understand the difference:

 
“It has been said loudly and proudly that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. If that's the case, then gays would be the new African-Americans. I'm here to tell you now, and hopefully for the last time, that the gay community is not the new African-American community.”

 
This is why California’s marriage protection amendment (Prop 8) was affirmed by an overwhelming majority of African Americans (70% voted for the proposition). African Americans understand that homosexual behavior has nothing in common with skin color.

 .
ARGUMENT: It’s Irrational to Oppose Same Sex Marriage Just Because It Is New. ‘Marriage’ Has Already Been Redefined Several Times Over the Course of History
Marriage has meant different things to different societies over the course of time. Some cultures have embraced polygamy; others have defined it in different ways. The definition of marriage is ‘fuzzy’ and can be determined by the culture in which it exists. Homosexual marriage should not be resisted just because it is new, it should be seen as part of the further evolution of a term.

 
Response:
Marriage is not DEFINED by government; it is simply DESCRIBED by government. The institution of marriage is simply the natural outgrowth of what humans must do in order to propagate and continue their existence. Government is simply recognizing what is, by definition, the single most necessary human relationship.

 
Over the course of history, governments have decided who will or will not be included in the institution of marriage, but this has in no way changed the definition of marriage over time. Marriage has always been the relationship in which the next generation of citizens is conceived and raised, and this hasn’t changed over the course of history. This relationship naturally requires one man and one woman, because without these two participants, the next generation cannot be conceived. While government may decide WHO can be involved in the marriage relationship, our decision will have no impact on the DEFINITION of marriage.

 
Let’s compare this idea to the definition of “driving” as an example. We all know what the definition of driving is: the operation and control of a motor vehicle. Yet over time, we have changed the laws related to WHO gets to drive. In fact, the laws related to who gets to drive are different in many states, even today. But while our decision related to WHO gets to drive might vary from state to state or from time to time, our changing decisions have nothing to do with the definition of driving (“driving” is still “driving”)! It’s appropriate for government to decide who gets to drive, but government does not base this decision on the desires of individuals who want to drive; instead, the government makes a decision on the basis of what is in the best interest of the population at large.

 
In a similar way, it is appropriate for government to decide who can participate in the institution of marriage on the basis of what is in the best interest of the culture, rather than the desires of the individual parties who want to get married.

  
ARGUMENT: It’s Wrong to Prohibit Same Sex Marriage on the Basis of Religion Because Religions Have Endorsed Other Unaccepted Behaviors Like Polygamy and Slavery
Christians seem quick to want to prohibit same sex marriage on the basis of religious principle, yet they have historically endorsed other institutions that are far more immoral. Christianity has endorsed the institution of slavery and the institution of polygamy, and the Christian Bible has authorized these institutions. In addition, many Christians have no problem divorcing one another, even though Jesus said this was a sin! Why do Christians pick and choose what sins they will endorse or prohibit, and why are homosexuals the only ones who have to live sinlessly?

 
Response:
The Bible does NOT endorse polygamy or slavery, and while some Christians may participate in divorce, Christianity has not compromised its position on the issue.

 
Atheists often claim that the Bible has endorsed polygamy or slavery without understanding the totality of scripture. As it turns out, this is a false claim and a ‘straw man’ argument. The Bible does not endorse polygamy (more on that HERE) and the Bible has long been misunderstood related to its stand on slavery (more on that HERE).

 
Response:
The case against same sex marriage is not dependant on a theistic worldview at all. In fact, little or no time has been given here to the Christian perspective on the topic. Same sex marriage should be prohibited for completely non-religious reasons.

 
While my Christian view related to same sex marriage may agree and align with the case as represented by our responses to those who support same sex marriage, a Christian worldview is not required to make the case against same sex marriage. We do have an article related to the Christian view of same sex marriage offered HERE, but the case against same sex marriage is actually made on the natural merits of two biological parental family units as described HERE)

 
Response:
Yes, Christians often fall short of the standard that is described in their worldview and prescribed by their faith system. But that has little or nothing to do with whether same sex marriage has merit in and of itself.

 
Our assessment of whether or not same sex marriage should be legalized has nothing to do with our sinful nature whether we are Christians or not. I often want to choke the people I with whom I work; does this then mean that I cannot oppose the legalization of murder? I often speak harshly about the people I am called to love; does this mean I cannot oppose the practice of gossip and harsh talk? My own fallen nature has little or nothing to do with the merit of these behaviors, and I will quickly admit that I fall short of the standard that I embrace for myself. This does not mean that I cannot affirm or desire the standard.

  
ARGUMENT: It’s Wrong to Prohibit Same Sex Marriage Based on the Idea that Homosexuality is Somehow “Deviant”, Because Homosexuality is a Natural Behavior Practiced By Every Species on Earth
We simply cannot continue to view homosexuality as some form of "deviant sexual behavior". People who make this kind of claim are simply ignorant of the historical, biological and anthropological evidence. Homosexuality has existed within the human population (and within the population of other species) from the earliest of times, and there is overwhelming evidence that homosexuality has a biological causation.

 
Response:
One does not have to oppose homosexuality as a behavior to oppose same sex marriage as an institution. Private behaviors are one thing, publicly affirmed, approved and endorsed institutions are another.

 
The issue of whether we think homosexuality is in some way ‘deviant’ has nothing to do with our support or opposition to same sex marriage. We can and should assess same sex marriage on the forensic evidence, and decide if it is in the best interest of children to present same sex marriage as though it is no different than traditional marriage. How does same sex marriage measure up against traditional marriage? What do studies tell us about the level of abuse, the level of faithfulness, the level of general health and wellbeing, the level of endurance, and of course the wellbeing of children who are raised within same sex marriages? It is on the basis of these attributes that we ought to decide whether we should legalize same sex marriage, and on the basis of these measurements, we clearly should not legalize the practice (more on this HERE).

 
Response:
The fact that homosexuality is or has been a part of the human condition from earliest times says nothing about whether or not homosexuality has merit as a behavior. And the fact that homosexuality may have a ‘biological causation’ does not mean that it has merit as a behavior.

 
Citing the history of homosexuality or the possible biological contributors of the behavior says nothing about its merit. People (and other species of animal) have been stealing from one another from the earliest of times. The fact that this is an ancient practice fails to persuade any of us that we should embrace this as an accepted behavior. People (and other species of animal) have been brutalizing the weak from the earliest of times. Once again, this does not mean that we should then hold this activity in high regard.

In addition, the fact that a behavior may have a biological causation says nothing about whether or not one should actually behave in a particular way or must behave in a particular way. It seems that science is constantly finding the genetic markers that seem to be related to a particular behavior, but while many of us may be genetically pre-DISPOSED toward a particular behavior, this does not mean that it is pre-DETERMINED that we will behave in this way. Many of us may possess a gene that predisposes us toward anger or adultery, but this does not mean that we must succumb to the predisposition. A genetic predisposition says nothing about the ‘oughtness’ of a behavior.

 
ARGUMENT: It’s Ludicrous to Deny Same Sex Marriage on the Basis of the Wellbeing of Children, Because Studies Show That Children Do Just As Well in Same Sex Households
There have been many studies that show that children raised in same sex households perform just as well as children raised in two biological parent households. And in addition to this, studies also show that children do much better in same sex two parent households than they do in single parent households with a heterosexual parent! We should stop opposing two parent same sex households on the basis of ‘studies’ because there are many studies that support same sex households as a valuable form of family.

 
Response:
It is simply untrue to say that studies demonstrate that there is no difference between children who are raised in traditional two parent marriages and children who are raised in same sex unions. Those studies that have been conducted by homosexual advocates in an effort to prove that there is no appreciable difference have revealed just the opposite or are flawed in a number of significant ways.

 
Over and over again, we are bombarded with news of studies that attempt to convince us that there is no difference between children raised in two biological parent families and children raised in same sex unions. But it’s important to look at the details that are usually obscured by a larger headlines. These studies are usually conducted by researchers who are homosexual themselves, and the individual statistics reveal that there ARE appreciable differences that result from the two distinct forms of family units. Let’s take a look at a few examples of studies that are offered by homosexual advocates to support their premise that same sex marriages are no different than traditional marriages in their impact on kids:

 
The Study: “Adolescent Outcomes in Single Parent, Heterosexual Couple, and Homosexual Couple Families: Findings from a National Survey” (Dufur, McKune, Hoffmann, and Bahr, 2007)
This study attempts to argue that there is no difference between adolescents raised in same sex unions and those raised in traditional two biological parent households, and it compares “a variety of academic and behavioral outcomes across seven family types: two-parent biological, single mother, single father, father/stepmother, mother/stepfather, two gay male parents, and two lesbian parents.” The study claims that “comparisons across these family types show that adolescents raised by gay and lesbian parents typically behave more like youth in two parent biological families, providing little support for gendered-deficit theories.”

 
The Problem:
The study data itself actually demonstrates that there IS a difference between adolescents raised in the two settings. This is why the final language offered by the researchers in carefully shaded: “adolescents raised by gay and lesbian parents typically behave more like youth in two parent biological families.” At best, this study reveals that kids raised by two homosexual partners often do better than kids raised by a single parent, but over and over again the statistics reveal that kids perform better in heterosexual two parent marriages at every level of measurement.

 
Like other studies of this kind, researchers found that kids in two parent same sex households come closest to those raised in two biological parent households, but they still fall short of those from the latter group. In some areas, the difference is small, in other areas the difference is more pronounced. This particular study, which proposed that there were really no appreciable differences between children raised in either setting, reveled something very different in the itemized statistics. Kids raised in same sex households performed more poorly in the following scales: rate of delinquency, grades, school problems, parental aspirations, parental openness about sex, parental communication about sex, and the number of sexual partners that the child reported. This final statistic, (the number of sexual partners that the child experiences while an adolescent) was greater amongst children raised in the context of the same sex unions and the study actually admits that the difference may be larger than they are reporting based on the fact that their sample of homosexual parents was small.

In addition, this study, like others, fails to identify just how long the same sex union actually impacted the child. Most children involved in same sex unions were, in fact, born into a traditional two biological parent household. One of the parents then divorced and became involved in a same sex union, bringing the children from the traditional marriage along for the ride. Studies such as this fail to tell us how long the same sex union has actually impacted the child. If a child was raised to the age of 13 in a traditional setting, then endured a divorce and finally found him or herself as the child in a same sex union and was surveyed at 16 years of age, how can the researcher actually measure which household accounts for the condition of the child? Isn’t it possible that children like this will measure closer to those raised their entire lives in a traditional setting simply because they spent most of their lives in that traditional setting? These kinds of studies never really give us an answer to this important question.

 
The Study: “Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents” (Wainright, Russell, Patterson, 2004)
This study surveyed 88 teenagers, half of whom were parented by same sex couples and half of whom were parented by opposite sex couples, measuring “family and relationship variables… psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic attractions and behaviors…” The study argues that regardless of household, “…on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type.” In addition the study claims that “assessments of romantic relationships and sexual behavior were not associated with family type...” and that “regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported better school adjustment.”

 
The Problem:
Once again we have to take a careful look at the language that the researchers use here, because it reveals the truth about their study: “…on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type.” The truth is that the best the researchers can say here is that they believe that children raised in same sex household are generally doing well, but they cannot (and in fact DO not) say that there is no difference between the two groups. There are, in fact, statistical differences. The best the researchers can then say is that “regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported better school adjustment.” This statement shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone and it says nothing about the value of same sex unions related to the value of traditional two biological parent families. It’s always true (regardless of family structure) that children do better when their caretakers are closer to them!

 
The truth is that this study was conducted by two well known lesbian activists (Wainright and Patterson) and they limited their study to lesbian households (which always perform better on parenting scales than do gay male households). They failed to mention this in the synopsis of their study, but this has a dramatic impact on the result and final conclusion of their work. Why limit the study in this way unless this is being done to skew the results? But that’s not all the researchers did. They quickly realized that the opposite sex households in their survey were stable and in many ways favorable, so they searched for same sex households that matched them economically, structurally and geographically. In other words, they ‘cherry-picked the sample of lesbian households trying to find those that most resembled the opposite sex households they had already isolated. They then conducted this study from this special group of same sex households. As a result, they completely neglected a true cross-section of lesbian same sex households (not to mention that they failed to consider gay male households at all)! This study simply provides NO data that we can use to judge the real range of parent-child relationships

 
The Study: “Adjustment And Parenting In [Dutch] Lesbian-Parent Families” (Bos, van Balen, and van den Boom, 2007)
This study examined the wellbeing of children raised in ‘planned’ Dutch lesbian-parent families (in other words, two-mother families in which the child was born to the lesbian relationship primarily through insemination), and compared these to Dutch heterosexual-parent families. The study is actually argues that evidence demonstrates that lesbians are equal (or even superior) to heterosexual parents.

 
The Problem:
Clearly the samples here are limited. Once again, male homosexuals have been excluded, and we know that they would negatively impact the argument for same sex families. But more than that, the sample is limited to Dutch households, and we already know that heterosexual families perform worse in Holland than they do in America (i.e. rate of divorce etc.). Any comparison in this part of the world has little or no value to the argument here in America where the differences between the two households are far more striking.

 
But in addition to this, the researchers once again selected their homosexual households from a limited source that favored these households over the opposite sex households that were drawn from only two geographic settings. In other words, the researchers did not take a random sampling of households from the same region or demographic of the country. They were not comparing apples to apples.

Beyond this, the researchers limited their data collection to ‘self-reporting’ statistics; they trusted the answers that were given to them by those whom they surveyed, without any objective observation or corroboration. That makes the results very untrustworthy because lesbian households know that they are being scrutinized by the culture, and they are far more likely to shade their answers in an effort to protect their image as parents. It’s therefore reasonable to assume that their responses may have been slanted so that they appear in a more favorable light.

But worse than all of this was the lack of emphasis on child development altogether. The study offered only one survey that actually measured child adjustment, and the children surveyed were only six years old! The survey group was far too small and far too young to be of value in the study.

 
We’ve only cited three studies in this short examination, but when all the studies that support or promote same sex marriages are carefully reviewed, it is clear that they don’t effectively make the case that children raised in same sex households do as well as children raised in traditional, two biological parent households. Over and over again, these studies reveal that two biological parent households are more advantageous for children.

 
ARGUMENT: It’s Wrong to Prohibit Same Sex Marriages on the Basis of a Child’s Wellbeing Because Same Sex Couples Don’t Have “Unwanted” Children
Every day in America, children are born to opposite sex couples who haven’t planned for them and have no desire to have them in the first place. There are millions of unwanted children born into traditional opposite sex marriages. But homosexual couples don’t experience this kind of tragedy. Same sex couples, because they cannot conceive naturally, must plan and prepare to become adoptive parents or plan and prepare to conceive a child through insemination. This requirement for advance preparation eliminates the possibility of an unwanted child in a same sex marriage, and for this reason, children that are brought into such a relationship are vastly better off. No child in a same sex marriage is ‘unwanted’.

 
Response:
Very few of the children who are presently being raised in a same sex marriage are actually adopted! The vast majority were conceived in a prior heterosexual relationship, and many of these may already be “unwanted”

 
The majority of children that live in a homosexual household didn’t start off that way. They were born into a family with two opposite sex parents, one of whom eventually decided to end the relationship and declare that he or she was a homosexual, causing the divorce or termination of the relationship. Since most children are awarded to their mothers at the point of divorce, the majority of children from a prior marriage who are living with a homosexual parent in a new same sex household are children living with a lesbian mother and her new partner. How could we ever know if these children were more or less ‘wanted’ than children born into traditional two biological parent households? Why would we believe that the new homosexual partner would ‘want’ these children more than their actual biological parent who is no longer part of the relationship?

 
Response:
If it is true that children brought into same sex households are more ‘wanted’ than those born into traditional opposite sex households, why do studies (including studies conducted by homosexual advocates) continue to reveal that children raised in same sex households perform at levels lower than children who were raised in opposite sex, two biological parent households?

 
The degree to which a child is ‘wanted’ seems to have little impact on the wellbeing of the child, at least in light of the studies that have been done comparing the children from same sex and opposite sex households. The data is clear and it favors those children (‘wanted or ‘unwanted’) who are raised in traditional two biological parent households.

 
Response:
In every relationship that involves a child, there is one parent who ‘wanted’ the child more than the other, but traditional two biological parent marriages have the advantage of two biological parents who possess the natural tendency to bond strongly with a child who is related biologically.

 
While many children are initially ‘unwanted’ by their biological parents, they do have the advantage of a biological connection, and many parents find themselves bonding with their children after they are born. Biological parents have the advantage of knowing that their children are ‘their own blood’ and this often provides the basis for strong bonding once the child is born. We see this with mother’s who initially want to give up their children for adoption, but once they hold the baby that came from their own womb, they immediately bond and refuse to give up the child. This kind of biological and emotional bonding is unique to two biological parent marriages.

 
Response:
Same sex relationships are statistically more likely to be abusive, unhealthy, promiscuous and temporary, and these factors are what make them so detrimental to children. How does the pre-planned adoption of a child change the reality of these factors?

 
The very factors that are so detrimental to the wellbeing of children have little or nothing to do with whether or not children are ‘wanted’. Instead, the factors that impact children most are those behaviors that are intrinsic to the homosexual parents who are raising them. It is marital infidelity, abusive behavior between spouses, unsafe and risky sexual behavior, and the relatively transient nature of same sex relationships that negatively impact children and none of these factors are impacted by how much the parents ‘want’ their children.

 
ARGUMENT: It’s Impractical to Prohibit Same Sex Marriage on the Basis of a Concern for Children, Because Denying Marriage Will Not Prevent Same Sex Parenting
Gay and lesbian couples are having children already without the benefit of marriage. And they aren’t the only ones! Single mothers, teenagers, drug addicts and prostitutes are also having children every day. Of these groups who are already having children, only same sex couples have the benefit of two people who want to be married. Shouldn’t we make this legal commitment possible, and wouldn’t a same sex marriage be in the best interest of the children in this situation? We should legalize same sex marriages because same sex partners are already bringing children into the world (or raising the children they already have) without the benefit of a marriage commitment.

 
Response:
It’s irrational to argue that something should be legalized just because it is occurring.

 
Let’s be clear about what is being argued here. Proponents of same sex marriage are saying that there are people who are already having children and living as though they are married, and for this reason we should legalize the institution of same sex marriage. In other words, we should legalize something because it is already occurring and it would be better for everyone who is doing it to have the endorsement of the culture rather than its disapproval. What if we applied this same kind of thinking to other behaviors that are presently not legal? Should we legalize narcotic use? It would definitely be safer for those who are already involved as drug users. Should we legalize robbery? It would definitely be safer for those who are already involved in the activity.

Of course we would never accept this argument for the legalization of other presently illegal activities. We would never say that we should legalize something simply because people are doing it; instead, we evaluate the behavior on the basis of how it impacts the society as a whole (is it good for the society or bad for the society?), and this is the only basis on which we should consider the legalization of same sex marriage.

 
ARGUMENT: It’s Harmful to Prohibit Same Sex Marriage Because Doing So Sends a Bad Signal to Children
It’s hurtful to prevent loving same sex couples from making a legal commitment to each other, and it’s also hurtful to do this in front of their children. Denying the institution of marriage to same sex couples sends a message to children who are being raised in these households. Our society ought to be affirming the institution of marriage to ALL children, even those who are being raised in same sex households.

 
Response:
All of us would agree that our culture should affirm marriage and send this message to our children, but the real question is not ‘should encourage and affirm marriage?’, it’s ‘what kind of marriage should we affirm?’

 
There are many forms of marriage that we have no problem denying; we prohibit and deny polygamous marriages, bigamous marriages, and incestuous marriages with no regret at all, even though these relationships include children in their households. We deny these relationships marital status because we know that this is in the best interest of the society at large. There are many unorthodox relationships in America that include children in their households. We would not argue that these relationships should be legalized as marriages so that we won’t send an unloving message to the children.

 
ARGUMENT: It’s Unfair to Prevent Same Sex Couples From Marrying Unless We Are Also Going to Prevent Couples Who Don’t Want to Have Children from Getting Married
Opponents of same sex marriage often argue that the institution of marriage should be reserved for those who will ultimately raise children. In fact, they often describe marriage as the foundational relationship of all culture simply because it ensures what is best for children. But marriage is more than that. We already allow opposite sex couples to marry even though they have no intention of having children at all. Why do we allow this to happen if marriage is supposed to be all about raising kids? Why would we allow these couples to marry, yet we will not allow same sex couples to marry?

 
Response:
Opposite sex relationships differ from same sex relationships in an important way; naturally conceived children are a very real possibility in opposite sex relationships. For this reason, marriage must be reserved for opposite sex relationships.

 
Traditional marital relationships are an organic part of every society. Opposite sex couples are drawn to each other and find themselves in these kinds of relationships based on simple, natural attraction, and their relationships will result in children without any assistance or prodding from the government. In contrast to this, the concept of same sex ‘marriage’ is a complete creation of the state. Same sex couples can’t have kids unless someone either gives them a child or gives them the genetic material to create a child. Then, to establish parental rights in the same sex marriage, the state has to end the rights of an opposite sex parent (the biological parent or donor of the genetic material) and create parental rights for one of the same sex partners! Opposite sex relationships develop organically and are merely recognized by the state, but same sex relationships must be created by the state.

We affirm and encourage marriage for opposite sex couples because we know that, unlike same sex couples, these couples MAY have children and this happens naturally without the intrusive involvement of the state. Many couples enter into a marital relationship with no intention of having children, yet children are often born anyway. The institution of marriage provides these children with the foundational societal institution needed to assure their wellbeing. Marriage is all about the wellbeing of children, even if children are not initially intended by those who are married.

 
So Much To Consider
We’ve addressed a number of arguments that are typically offered by those who support the idea of same sex marriage. As you discuss this issue with your friends (and as you think through the issue for yourself), it’s important to listen carefully to the arguments that are offered and look for their representation in this article. We’ve tried to be as comprehensive as possible to cover all of the possible arguments that are offered. You’ll notice that very little has been written here from a purely Biblical perspective. While the Christian worldview resonates and agrees with responses offered here, these responses are not dependant on a Biblical perspective. If Christianity is true, its perspective should be the most reasonable and rational option on the table, and we hope that this article demonstrates that rationality related to the issue of same sex marriage.