In the last article, I wrote how the institution of marriage has been under attack for many years now. And the issue of gay marriage is just the latest in this group of attacks. In this article, I’ll explain why I am not in favor of gay marriage.
Infidelity is a big enough problem among heterosexual couples, but it is even worse among gay couples. In Amsterdam, where gay marriage is legal, infidelity and promiscuity are the norm, not the exception. “Those with a steady partner and those without reported having an average of 8 and 22 casual partners per year, respectively.” [cite] In another study looking for faithfulness in 156 male homosexuals, no couple that had been together longer than five years had a faithful relationship. Of the seven couples that were monogamous, none remained exclusively faithful to each other for longer than five years. All relationships lasting longer than five years, even the one lasting 37 years, had some agreement which allowed for infidelity. These are not so much faithful companions as roommates. [cite] Since infidelity is a bad thing for traditional marriage, how will adding the rampant infidelity of gay couples do anything to improve the institution of marriage?
Gay relationships are also linked with domestic violence. Almost 50% of gay men suffer domestic abuse serious enough to require hospitalization. For lesbians, violent domestic abuse reaches 55%. If emotional abuse is added to these statistics, the numbers reach 83% and 84% for males and females, respectively. [cite] This level of domestic violence is much higher than in heterosexual couples, so how is legalizing gay marriage a benefit to marriage as an institution?
One major reason given in favor of gay marriage revolves around the legal benefits that accrue to married couples. But these very same benefits are available for non-married couples, and it doesn’t require the ham-fisted force of government to provide them. Homosexual advocates demand that gays be allowed to marry so they can reap the same legal benefits that married couples have. Common requests I have heard deal with hospital visitation rights, joint ownership of property and bank accounts, and inheritance, among others. All of these benefits can be obtained through common legal documents. It doesn’t require an act of Congress to make these things happen. If a gay couple really wants these benefits, they only need to act. It is true that married couples have many of these benefits without the need of the same legal documents, but these were put in place for the benefit of the children born into a family and for their parents. And when you come down to it, it is in the government’s best interest to promote couples bearing future tax-payers. Regardless of how much they try, a homosexual couple will never have children together.
But what is the ultimate goal of the gay advocates? What is it that drives them to argue for marriage? It can’t be the legal benefits, for those are already available to the people who want them. A common demand of gay activists is that people tolerate other lifestyles. But these gay activists no longer seek tolerance. They are demanding that people accept them. Not only must others tolerate and turn a blind eye to their actions, they must now actively accept that the gay lifestyle is just as valid and good as the heterosexual lifestyle. I can’t help but think of the poem by Alexander Pope:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen,
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
Essay on Man (ep. II, l. 217)
If gay activists have their way, and the government steps in and redefines marriage as the union of two people rather than the union of a man and woman, what will follow? Two things, and quickly. First, once gay marriage is legal in the U.S., then lawsuits will be filed to force churches to accept and perform gay marriages. All pretense of seeking tolerance will vanish at this point; the club of lawsuits will be used to force full acceptance of the gay lifestyle on everyone. Second, the institution of marriage will be dealt what will likely be its death-blow as every possible redefinition of marriage will be pushed forward in the courts. If the definition can be changed once, it will be that much easier to change it again and again. Just think, marriage will become the union of:
– a man and multiple women
– a woman and multiple men
– multiple men and multiple women
– an adult and a child (can you say NAMBLA?)
– a living person with a dead person
– humans and non-humans
A society that cherishes and promotes healthy, happy marriage between a man and a woman is a society that will thrive. Gay unions, even in countries where they are fully legal and accepted, do not come close to providing the same healthy and happy benefits as heterosexual unions.
I hold no hatred for gays. But I do recognize that their call for marriage creates no benefits for anyone, and the potential for great harm to themselves, others, and society as a whole.
And I cannot support it.