The Case Against Gay Marriage

Peter Pike

Gay marriage is a volatile issue in America today. The vast majority of Americans reject the idea that homosexual couples should be married, but very few of these people can actually articulate a reason why. Homosexual activists pounce on this perceived weakness and argue that it is a “civil rights” issue for homosexuals. In the end, the average American is left in a quandary—he instinctively believes gay marriage is wrong, but he can’t seem to argue against the logic of the left.

As is often the case when dealing with leftists, once you cut through the rhetoric the actual logic of the situation rests firmly in the conservative’s position. First and foremost, gay marriage is not a “rights” issue. No one has the “right” to marry whomever he wants to marry. We can only marry one person who (until recently in Massachusetts) was required to be of the opposite sex. A person cannot marry inanimate objects, animals, children, or multiple people. A person cannot marry someone who is currently married to someone else.

Why is this the case? Why all these restrictions? Simply put, it is because marriage is an important and necessary institution to the functioning of civilization, and as such fulfils a specific role that cannot be altered without changing the very nature of civilization itself. Marriage was not designed as an end for two people who love each other—anyone can love anyone else without getting married to that person and the love does not change. Marriage was not designed for two people to spend their lives together either—anyone can live with another person if they choose to do so, and this does not require any governmental sanction.

In the civil realm, marriage is designed for one reason, and only one reason. Children. Marriage gives children the structure they need to thrive in civilization. There are countless studies that demonstrate the fact that children raised in a traditional marriage structure do better in society than any other family structure. Children in broken homes are at higher risk for suicide, dropping out of school, and criminal behavior. No scientific study has ever demonstrated that there is any benefit to a child when he or she does not have both a father and a mother. Indeed, the reverse is shown in all studies. Children need parents.

This provides a compelling reason for the civil state to regulate marriage. In fact, this is the only reason that government regulates who can be married. The primary job of the state is to protect citizens from threats, including both foreign armies and domestic criminals. As a result, the state has a definite interest in promoting the welfare of children if for no other reason than the fact that children in traditional families are less likely to break the law and harm other citizens.

Homosexuals may argue that they can adopt children and raise them with their partner, thus providing a support family. After all, it must be better to have two loving homosexual parents than a single mother, right? But this is akin to saying it is better to be stabbed in the arm than shot in the head. Sure it is, but one could hardly argue either option is good for you! In the same way, children do not need two people in their homes—they need a mother and a father.

Men and women are different. Homosexual marriage advocates would like you to believe that men and women are the same, that you can replace a father with a second mother and get the same results as a nuclear family. Men and women are just Lego blocks that can be switched in and out of different relationships.

But this is flat out false. Each sex has its own specific traits and characteristics. Men can do things women can’t do, and women can do things men can’t do. Each can offer the child a different area of support that the other cannot even pretend to reach. Men and women should celebrate their diversity, because the marriage unit (where man and women become “one”) requires both. And this is why, when you take away the father or the mother, the child becomes statistically more likely for all the social ills.

But despite this, there is one final argument of the homosexual activist. It is a pragmatic one. “How does it harm you if I marry my partner?” It may very well be that it does not harm me, but that is a far cry from saying that it does not harm society which (in the end) harms my children and their children. If marriage does not depend on the sex of the applicants, it ought not matter what other characteristics the applicants have. Indeed, I should be able to marry myself as it is obvious that I would marry someone I love, and it would be discriminatory to deny my “right” to marry myself for no other reason than the number of people asking to be married! And if I am legally married, then I should be able to have children. Even though I cannot naturally conceive of a child by myself, I should still be able to adopt a child because I am married. The end result is a child that is forced to grow up in a less than ideal environment, all because of my own selfish desires to get special benefits only found in marriage.

The government legislated those benefits for a reason. They are there to protect children, not to harm them. Gay marriage can only harm children because it creates an environment where it is encouraged to have children without both a father and a mother. In essence, when we say yes and allow two lesbians to marry and either adopt or artificially conceive children, we are denying their children the right to a father. When two gay men marry and adopt a child, we are denying that child the right to a mother. Both of these are travesties for the children.

Where are those who would argue for the civil rights of the children?

---

Peter Pike lives in Colorado. You can visit his website at http://www.PeterPike.com