http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/107/41.0.html
Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful
Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for
children, and bad for society.
By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to
gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more
than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay
marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual
cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power
of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals
bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with
only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and
individual aberrations became a torrent.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/107/41.0.html

Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful
Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for
children, and bad for society.
By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open

gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more
than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay
marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual
cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the

of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals
bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start

only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and
individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were

rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of
wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we
know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have

lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted,
more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and

and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative
effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the
institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad
for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very
definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western
society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such

statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic

The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman
committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the
basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction

proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a
strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of

marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental
understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will

that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The
advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male
relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to

than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent

of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more
likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets
between two men than between a man and a woman. . Something of the gay
relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could
undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely
homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the
gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk

fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship

your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying
opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples

have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests
that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable
homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year
outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace
relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates
hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for
traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the
University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between
traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral."

argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish

moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but
she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender

& Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a
widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage
will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or
more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article

Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters
for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family
headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay
marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which
may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have

through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be

purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research

also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with
their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family,
and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality

embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV,
drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming
because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys,

than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have
already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that

is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially
connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too
easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described
above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having
trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If
marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society,

more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist
judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of
people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They
will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism

abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law
and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social
conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and
possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will

harm Americans-including those in heterosexual marriages-over the long

Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional
definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by
recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for

let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live

to its ideals.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/107/41.0.html
Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful
Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for
children, and bad for society.
By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott

Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to
gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more
than mushrooms after a spring rain. How would the legalization of gay
marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages?
The answer at first glance is that it wouldn't, at least not in individual
cases in the short run. But what about the longer run for everyone?
It is a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power
of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals
bucking conventional patterns of behavior. Negative social trends start with
only a few aberrations. Gradually, however, social sanctions weaken and
individual aberrations became a torrent.
Think back to the 1960s, when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively
rare. At that time many asked how one young woman having a baby out of
wedlock or living with an unmarried man could hurt their neighbors. Now we
know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned:
lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted,
more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty,
and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
But even so, why would a new social trend of gays marrying have negative
effects? We believe there are compelling reasons why the
institutionalization of gay marriage would be 1) bad for marriage, 2) bad
for children, and 3) bad for society.
1. The first casualty of the acceptance of gay marriage would be the very
definition of marriage itself. For thousands of years and in every Western
society marriage has meant the life-long union of a man and a woman. Such a
statement about marriage is what philosophers call an analytic proposition.
The concept of marriage necessarily includes the idea of a man and woman
committing themselves to each other. Any other arrangement contradicts the
basic definition. Advocates of gay marriage recognize this contradiction by
proposing "gay unions" instead, but this distinction is, we believe, a
strategic one. The ultimate goal for them is the societal acceptance of gay
marriage.
Scrambling the definition of marriage will be a shock to our fundamental
understanding of human social relations and institutions. One effect will be
that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. The
advocates of gay marriage themselves admit as much. "Among gay male
relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive
than many heterosexual bonds," Andrew Sullivan, the most eloquent proponent
of gay marriage, wrote in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal. "There is more
likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets
between two men than between a man and a woman. . Something of the gay
relationship's necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could
undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
The former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church, a largely
homosexual denomination, made the same point. "Monogamy is not a word the
gay community uses," Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News. "We talk about
fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with
your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying
opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could
have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception."
A recent study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, suggests
that the moderator is correct. Researchers found that even among stable
homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year
outside their "monogamous" relationship.
In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays.
Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace
relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates
hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for
traditional marriage altogether. Law Professor Martha Ertman of the
University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between
traditional marriage and "polyamory" (group marriage) "morally neutral." She
argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this
moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but
she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law
& Policy). University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a
widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage
will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or
more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).
2. Gay marriage would be bad for children. According to a recent article in
Child Trends, "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters
for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family
headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." While gay
marriage would encourage adoption of children by homosexual couples, which
may be preferable to foster care, some lesbian couples want to have children
through anonymous sperm donations, which means some children will be created
purposely without knowledge of one of their biological parents. Research has
also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with
their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family,
and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to
embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV,
drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens. This is particularly alarming
because, according to a 1991 scientific survey among 12-year-old boys, more
than 25 percent feel uncertain about their sexual orientations. We have
already seen that lesbianism is "chic" in certain elite social sectors.
Finally, acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen the notion that marriage
is primarily about adult yearnings for intimacy and is not essentially
connected to raising children. Children will be hurt by those who will too
easily bail out of a marriage because it is not "fulfilling" to them.
3. Gay marriage would be bad for society. The effects we have described
above will have strong repercussions on a society that is already having
trouble maintaining wholesome stability in marriage and family life. If
marriage and families are the foundation for a healthy society, introducing
more uncertainty and instability in them will be bad for society.
In addition, we believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist
judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of
people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They
will strongly resist redefinition. Like the 1973 judicial activism regarding
abortion, the imposition of gay marriage would bring contempt for the law
and our courts in the eyes of many Americans. It would exacerbate social
conflict and division in our nation, a division that is already bitter and
possibly dangerous.
In summary, we believe that the introduction of gay marriage will seriously
harm Americans-including those in heterosexual marriages-over the long run.
Strong political measures may be necessary to maintain the traditional
definition of marriage, possibly even a constitutional amendment.
Some legal entitlements sought by gays and lesbians might be addressed by
recognizing non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But as for marriage,
let us keep the definition as it is, and strengthen our capacity to live up
to its ideals.

--
It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
Margaret Sanger