The Pragmatic Case

It usually does little good to argue about same-sex marriage as a public policy issue using Biblical  arguments, no matter how badly we wish to rebut some of the horrific exegesis that comes from progressive Christians who support this massive and unprecedented subversion of 3400 years of western civilization.

A case must be made that shows how changing the definition of marriage changes society at large in a negative way and why a government should care.  Here are a few thoughts.   (Read More)

The Reality of Two Sexes

A redefinition of marriage in essence flies in the face of the obvious, undeniable and long understood reality that men and women are different.  Those differences are not merely physical, though the implications of the physical differences for human reproduction are hardly incidental to this issue.  Women are physiologically different from men, emotionally different, psychologically different.  This is simply a fact and it is absolutely and directly relevant to the entire debate.

Marriage Elevates Women

Historically, unprincipled men without the influence of western Judeo-Christian values have exploited those differences.  Men have physically, emotionally, psychologically "gotten what they want" in many cultures and women are at times helpless to resist.  Marriage works in favor of women because it makes women essential to the most basic unit of society.

Dennis Prager has made a compelling case that in ancient cultures the purpose of sex was divorced from reproduction - sex was about the powerful taking advantage of the weaker.  So sex with disposable women, disposal young boys and random farm animals was common for the powerful.  Children were often viewed not as the product of marriage – but as products of the male will.  The end result is that women and children were both somewhat non-essential to the goals and ambitions of the powerful.  A “wife” was not necessary to father a child. A marriage was not necessary for either sexual pleasure or reproduction. 

Prager writes:  “In societies where men sought out men for love and sex, women were relegated to society's periphery. Thus, for example, ancient Greece, which elevated homosexuality to an ideal, was characterized by ‘a misogynistic attitude,’ in Norman Sussman's words. Homosexuality in ancient Greece, he writes, ‘was closely linked to an idealized concept of the man as the focus of intellectual and physical activities...The woman was seen as serving but two roles. As a wife, she ran the home. As a courtesan, she satisfied male sexual desires.’ Classicist Eva Keuls describes Athens at its height of philosophical and artistic greatness as ‘a society dominated by men who sequester their wives and daughters, denigrate the female role in reproduction, erect monuments to the male genitalia, have sex with the sons of their peers.’

When the Jewish moral system reconnected sex and children with "family" the result was that women were understood as essential to the scheme.  The status of children was also elevated as their role in the continuation of the family line became essential.   Children learned belonging, respect, order, structure within the family unit.  And men no longer had free reign to express sexuality as mere sport unrelated to home and family.  Men were forced into responsibility.  Sex, husbands, wives, children, family, were all tied up in a singular social unit.  The most basic social structure - family - was established as the foundation of civilized society.  

Homosexual sex by definition can never be about reproduction (which is why Dan Savage refers to heterosexuals derogatorily as “breeders”.)  Pleasure tends to be the primary if not sole purpose of sex.  Partners may express love but that love or passion cannot be connected to reproduction.  A gay union cannot be organically connected to the "family" unit.  Children cannot exist apart from a union of a male sperm and female egg.   Children adopted into a gay "family" can never be biologically related to both "parents".  Whatever a "union" between individuals of the same sex is, it cannot ever be a "family" in a complete organic sense. 

Taming the Barbarians

In the heterosexual “hookup” culture and even more in the gay cruising culture, sex is disconnected from responsibility and ultimately becomes narcissistic.  As George Gilder put it in his insightful book "Men and Marriage", women tend to civilize men when marriage is valued.  Single young men who spend their time in carefree pursuits tend to be, in Gilder’s colorful metaphor, barbarians.  But such self-focused young adventurers are often motivated toward responsibility, productivity, selfless acts as a result of falling in love, taking a wife and becoming a parent.  The institutional family encourages fidelity, stability, perseverance. 

Given the well documented high rate of multiple partner relationships in the gay community, the serial monogamy and the extreme rarity of the oft-touted "committed relationship" there is simply no reason to think that same-sex unions will generally have the same effect.  Sex that is severed from the procreation of children which requires heterosexual union will tend toward little more than personal fulfillment of desire. 

Which is not to say procreation is the only purpose of sex.  The consummation of a marriage has a purpose of its own.  It is to say that only in heterosexual union is procreation possible and only in marriage is the raising of children by two biological parents the expected normal course of subsequent events.  

Health Issues Matter

Nor can this issue be discussed in the absence of the realities of health concerns.  Rectal intercourse (heterosexual or homosexual) is simply unhealthy.  Human bodies were not designed for that.  The incidence of AIDs in African countries where that practice is used as a form of birth control is one example.  The incidence of sexually transmitted disease among gay men dwarfs that even of promiscuous heterosexuals simply because those body parts are not well suited to those activities.  On the other hand, sexually transmitted disease among faithful, married heterosexuals is virtually non-existent.  One would think that might be a clue that male and female were designed for each other.  In a sane world, any government would consider health in any deliberations of loosening legal standards with regard to heterosexual marriage.

Forced Compliance

Prager notes an interesting statistic to counter the claim that all gay individuals are “born that way”:  “As a four-year study of 128 gay men by a UCLA professor of psychology revealed, ‘More than 92 percent of the gay men had dated a woman at some time, two-thirds had sexual intercourse with a woman.’ As of now, the one theory we can rule out is that homosexuals are biologically programmed to be homosexual.”  If it is true that two-thirds of gay men have had sex with a woman, then it must be at least theoretically possible that the affections of such men can be turned in that direction.  Insisting that gay orientation is irreversible and equal to heterosexual marriage may well prevent individuals from even pursuing the option of fulfillment in a traditional family.  In such a case the political agenda of “normalizing” homosexuality may violate the freedom of many gay men to reevaluate their lifestyle.

In addition, even though it is often argued that social conservatives are “making an issue” of this topic, the reverse is true.  The reason social conservatives are active in this debate is generally defensive, not going on offense politically.  This is not a case of singling out a particular issue.  There is little doubt that if a concerted effort was made by a nationwide movement of prostitutes to “normalize” prostitution, conservatives would actively resist that movement.  The reason gay-marriage has been elevated in the public debate is because gay activists have relentlessly pursued the goal of normalizing homosexuality.   The only thing that will ultimately satisfy their demands is for those who see the issue differently to essentially give up their own position entirely.  Those who see the family as essential to civilization cannot abdicate on this issue

Attempting to overturn 3400 years of Western culture against the wishes of most Americans is not likely to create a more free and civil society.  (32 states have laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  Only a handful of states have legalized gay marriage.)    Instead it will reduce sex to mere sport, devalue women and children, and shove many who simply wish to retain three millennia of wisdom into the periphery.   

This is a brief sketch, but there are many valid societal reasons for strengthening, not weakening, the traditional family unit.  It leads to the "civilizing" of young men, to the elevation of women as "essential" to the most basic of social units, and places children in an environment that is usually stable, nurturing and to which the child is organically connected.   And fidelity in marriage reduces risks of STDs.

None of this is to say that the traditional family is always perfect or that those who hold to the traditional definition of family cannot also favor adoption of children who need a home, remarriage of widows, forgiveness and healing for victims of abuse or restoration for those who face divorce.  Nor does it rule out compassion and understanding for those active in the gay lifestyle.  It is to say that there is one and only one ideal definition of the family for which all should strive: One man-one woman committed to care for each other for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health - and committed to raising their children to be responsible members of society.

For these reasons governments recognize marriage as a social contract, require licenses, blood tests and signatures. The family unit serves society because it is the most basic unit of society.  If a culture undercuts that unit, it destroys its own foundation.   That would not be merely wrong - it would be in George Gilder's words - suicidal.

For further reading, see Robert George's very thorough paper, "What is Marriage?"