an information resource
for orthodox Anglicans

More arguments against same-sex marriage

By Lisa Nolland
1/  Which does a child not need - her mother or her father? .
2/  If love and commitment are all that is necessary for marriage, what about those who want plural marriage?
3/  All marriage will be touched through the loss of the notion of adultery.
4/  If SSM becomes legal our children will be psychologically and sexually damaged in at least two ways.
5/  More unintended consequences
1/ Which does a child not need - her mother or her father? .
SSM deprives children born to gay or lesbian couples of either their mothers or their fathers. It does so automatically and intentionally. It half-orphans children relationally, socially, genetically and in terms of their ancestry. They are stripped of half of their heritage of/for the past, present and future. Is this just and right? It also strips all children of what has been a socially upheld notion, that if possible, children do best with their own parents, the two people who created them in the first place. Biology matters!
In fact, gold-standard research underlines this: Children flourish with their biological, married parents in a low conflict home. Research now tells us what many of us have known all along: Mothers do not father, nor do fathers mother. Kids do best with a combination of both parenting skills, styles etc. We are driving a horse and coach through this notion, and saying that children’s needs do not matter! Which of us can look back on our own lives and think that we would have fared as well had we never known who our father/mother was, and instead be raised by an adult of the same-sex who was the partner of our mum/dad?
Love is not enough. Kids need and deserve much more. The popularity of Find My Past taps into something profound. We need our roots!
2/ If love and commitment are all that is necessary for marriage, what about those who want plural marriage?
What will you say to the bisexuals who are now ‘out’ and claiming they are being discriminated against because trios (those in loving relationships with both sexes simultaneously) are not yet allowed to marry? Trios have publicly ‘tied the knot’ (as best they could) in Vancouver, Brazil and the Netherlands. They are coming out now and demanding rights and recognition. What will you say to them?
3/ All marriage will be touched through the loss of the notion of adultery.
If SSM goes through a man in a same-sex marriage will not have grounds for divorce if his partner sleeps with another man, but a woman in a heterosexual marriage will. This inequality cannot be allowed to stand in law. The ‘solution’ must be to quash the woman’s right to divorce on grounds of adultery.
4/ If SSM becomes legal our children will be psychologically and sexually damaged in at least two ways.
Vital psychological needs for same-sex bonding, intimacy and love will be sexualised; children will think they are gay when what is happening is natural child development. We are already hearing this occur now. Normal and necessary needs for intimacy are being eroticised in young boys and girls. And for all those who do not want to be thought gay, they must pull away from their same-sex friendships and so cannot develop as they ought, and end up being isolated and vulnerable.
In Canada (SSM became legal in 2005) last Valentine’s Day children (aged 8) actually ‘married’ their same-sex best friend in a Ontario school gay marriage ‘rite’, with cake and ice cream afterwards. ‘It is the law now!’ And parents can do nothing.
Secondly, even now much sexual ’health’ advice regarding gay and lesbian issues is horrific. Drugs, promiscuity, group sex, extreme sex acts are all being sold to our kids with NHS endorsement. See for example GMFA’s site: the NHS links lads 16 and older directly to them.

This is the NHS endorsed booklet for boys 13 and older:

At the moment some people are trying to get this ‘advice’ removed but get nowhere because of huge fears of those in authority. They will do nothing if it appears to be homophobic. With SSM all the above becomes mainstreamed in a much bigger, more public and protected way. In Canada horrific ‘advice’ is regularly given to kids and few if any dare complain, such is the worry/horror of being written off as anti-gay, prosecuted etc.

Who most loses though are young kids whose sexual ‘exploration’ will mean they are at far greater risk of HIV/AIDs, syphilis, gonorrhoea, anal cancer etc. (even when the condom appears to have worked). This is a very high risk sexual lifestyle (the earlier the sexual debut the worse) and those who engage in it (statistically) pay dearly! Kids now know that to smoke is risky. So too is sex. Yet our public health groups tacitly endorse and even encourage these behaviours by assurances of ‘safe sex’ (which is an oxymoron). This is madness
5/ More unintended consequences
Even if C of E were to have perpetual freedom not to do gay marriage (v. unlikely) they would have to recognise the status of gay couples who had been married by the state. Suppose two men 'marry' in England – recognised by state though not by Church. One then says he's bisexual and goes to a country that doesn't recognise gay marriage (so that he is effectively a 'single' man there) and asks Church there to marry him to a woman. Church can either say:
i) you can't marry a woman because you are already married to a man (but this means we 'recognise' your same sex marriage); or
ii) yes, we'll marry you because we don't recognise your same-sex marriage as real. He can then return to England to re-join his married-by-state 'husband' and bring his new married-by-church wife with him.

The whole thing becomes a Pandora's box. Even apart from the above example, if two men marry in England and go to almost any country overseas, they will not be considered 'married' in that country. Endless court cases will ensue, fighting about what the ECHR says is not a human right.

Also see Peter Tatchell on marriage:

Peter Tatchell makes it clear that giving gays two options (marriage and CP's) compared with only one for heterosexuals is unequal and cannot stand. So heterosexuals must have the CP option too. That means they'll be able to choose between:

i) the 'benefits' of marriage with no commitment or promise other than signing for a CP
ii) the same 'benefits', but having in return to make a costly lifetime commitment to monogamous fidelity.
For many/ most people it will be a no-brainer: why would you pay a high price for something when you can get it for free? (Of course the result will be that marriage withers on the vine and becomes supplanted by CP's. They will become easy-come, easy-go relationships, with hugely disastrous consequences for children.)

 [email protected]















You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments are closed.