Seattle, Washington is sometimes referred to as San Francisco North by the conservative minority around here.  And, like in San Francisco, many liberal Seattle residents are obsessive practitioners of bumper sticker advocacy.  On any particular Sunday drive, one can see numerous Volvos, Volkswagens, and Subarus covered with calls for an end to the war in Iraq, the impeachment of President Bush, and a free Tibet (which I’m sure is making a strong impact on the Chinese government).  Also prominent on these cars are rainbow stickers and the “=” symbol of gay equality.  Proponents of gay marriage are as numerous as espresso shops, and the cry of outrage over the passage of California’s Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one woman echoed loudly up here. 

As a conservative Evangelical Christian (the equivalent of a leper in Seattle society), I was not surprised by the blatant double-standard and hypocrisy displayed by the pro-gay marriage crowd.  I was saddened by its fury, and the way with which the mainstream media largely ignored or excused the actions of those who normally consider themselves the watchmen and advocates for tolerance and acceptance of divergent views.  These “lovers of tolerance” – mostly in California, but in other parts of the country as well – targeted churches with vandalism, demonstrations, and even stormed services and spewed obscenities out of hatred for the traditional views of those who worship there.  In California, decent people were forced out of their jobs and had their businesses hurt simply because of their support for Prop 8.  People who voted for traditional marriage, including an elderly woman, were physically assaulted and battered for their views.  Apparently the left only extends tolerance to those who think and act exactly like they do.  While the tolerance double-standard could make a good article, what I really want to address a question we’ve often received via email – why do we consider it so important to preserve traditional marriage, and oppose allowing gays to marry.

It may surprise some that my religious beliefs are only part of the reason for this view.  We’ve outlined those reasons with the articles “The Bible on Homosexuality” and “What the Bible Says about Homosexuality”, so we won’t rehash those reasons.  Please check out these articles if you’re under the impression that either the Bible has no proscriptions against homosexuality, or you think the only biblical condemnation of homosexuality is found in the Levitical law of the Old Testament.  Both are wrong views.  However, my biblical beliefs are only one reason I oppose gay marriage, and I’m far from alone.  A December 2008 CNN poll found that 55% of those surveyed opposed gay marriage.¹ This result was the same as a December 2008 Newsweek poll and a July 2008 Quinnipiac University poll.  Those same polls found support for gay marriage ranged from 36% to a high of 44%.²   Indeed, support for state and federal Defense of Marriage Acts, and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage meet with widespread support.  If California saw passage of their own traditional marriage amendment by 52% to 48%, imagine the popularity in more conservative states!  As of the writing of this article, 41 states have legislation or constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.³ Over here on the “Left Coast”, California’s Prop 8 is just the latest to pass.  My own blue state of Washington has a Defense of Marriage Act and left-leaning Oregon has a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage which passed in 2004 with 57% support!  Similar measures in more conservative states have passed with as much as 86% of the vote!  There is more at work in this trend than religious convictions.  Indeed, many people recognize the negative impacts gay marriage can have on society, even excluding any religious arguments. 

For ages, the cornerstone of society has been the family unit.  A man and a woman will join in marriage and, quite often, procreate.  Unlike in some animal species, human children are reared by their mother and father – a male and a female.  The mother and father are the source of their children’s genetic code, and children are raised with a male and female influence that brings balance to their learned behaviors and social skills.  As we’ll see, the influence of the mother and father on properly raising children is of paramount importance.  If we take either half out of the picture, children end up exhibiting a host of problems that follow them well into adulthood.  A family unit that is stable and has both a mother and father has been shown to result in children who are well-rounded, adapt well into society, and learn better how to treat those around them.  Homosexual couples claim they can adopt and raise children as well as any heterosexual couple, but they’re missing the point that their efforts and intentions do not make for well-raised and fulfilled children.

Psychologist Dr. Laura Haynes writes, “Some psychotherapists who treat children of same sex couples are reporting that the children do long for the gendered parent they do not have.  How can two mothers, no matter how well they may parent, welcome a son into the deep bonding fellowship of men, give him a parent who has both a masculine soul and a masculine body integrated in one person with whom he can identify, show him how to be a man, give him a primary male parent in his family daily with whom to grow up and form a lifelong loving bond? How can two men provide comparable for a girl?... Two parents of the same sex cannot teach a child how to relate deeply to both sexes in the same way that growing up with married parents—one of each sex—can.  Nature is narrow; it sets up every child to have a mother and a father. Same sex marriages intentionally alter the natural situation and deprive a child of one of his or her parents. A child is left with a black hole where a mother or father should be.”⁴

Much has been said about the divorce rate in this country.  I won’t disagree that it is abysmal, with about half of all marriages ending in divorce.  Proponents of gay marriage point to this statistic and claim that gay marriages would be no less stable than a marriage between a man and woman.  Well, that claim fails when we look at the facts.  The facts reveal that homosexual unions are about as stable as a one-legged dog on a tightrope. 

Looking across the pond to European nations that have accommodated homosexual unions or marriages provides some eye-opening statistics.  We find the rate of divorce among legal homosexual unions is much higher than among heterosexuals.  In Sweden, the rate of divorce among homosexuals is 50 percent higher than among heterosexual couples!⁵ The Netherlands has had full homosexual marriage rights since 2001.  Still, the study showed that this has not helped strengthen bonds, as the average duration of male homosexual relationships there is a whopping 17 months!⁶ Not exactly a benchmark of stability.  In a study of Canadian and American homosexuals, males reported the average longest relationship they had was two years.  The average longest relationship among lesbians was a hair over three years.  Contrast this with the average duration of marriage among American heterosexual couples of 25 years!⁷  

One possible reason for the instability inherent in homosexual relationships is the rampant infidelity and promiscuity.  A study of 156 homosexual male couples who had been together for at least a year found that an astounding 100% of the couples had experienced infidelity within the first five years!⁸ This same study found that gay couples made it past the ten-year mark only if they were willing to accept infidelity in the relationship!  This is sad and repulsive at the same time, yet also predictable.  When people violate God’s laws for sexual relationships by engaging in homosexuality, the walls of virtue have already been breeched.    

This infidelity is a natural offshoot of another plague among homosexuals – promiscuity.  A study found that the number of lifetime sexual partners for adult homosexual males was three times higher than for heterosexual males!⁹ That’s quite the contrast, but homosexual women have, on average, four times the number of sexual partners in their life than heterosexual women!  The promiscuity and moral depravity does not end there.  Another study of white homosexual males found that 75% reported having had more than 100 sexual partners, and 28% reported more than 1000 sexual partners!  The same study found that 99% of gay white males reported having had sex with strangers, and 79% stated that over half of their sexual partners were strangers.¹⁰ This is appalling and disgusting.  But when God’s laws for sexual living have been breeched, sin flows through like a flood.  While sexual sin among heterosexuals certainly exists, the contrast in stability and fidelity is striking.  Why should marriage be conferred to such an unstable and irresponsible enterprise, not even counting the factor of sin?  Dr. Haynes poses an excellent question, “If homosexual relationships are fulfilling, why are there so many changes in partners? People who are at peace with themselves do not seek random sex with strangers.”¹¹   

In addition to the above, there is an argument against allowing homosexuals to adopt that, while not politically correct, is accurate and documented.  Homosexuals often point out that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals.  That is true, but only because heterosexuals make up at least 98% of the population.  However, a study found that approximately one third of child molestations were homosexual in nature.¹² In other words, while homosexuals account for less than 2% of the population, they commit one-third of child molestations.  Another more stark way to phrase this equation is that homosexuals are 23 times more likely than heterosexuals to commit pedophilia! Now this isn’t to contend that all homosexuals are pedophiles.  No doubt most are not.  Yet the fact remains that the danger of pedophilia exists at a much more alarming rate among homosexuals than among heterosexuals.  Airplane crashes are rare, but would you book a flight for your family on an airline that was 23 times more likely to crash than other airlines?  Undoubtedly you would not want to assume that elevated risk.  Likewise, children are too innocent and vulnerable to risk on the social experiment of gay adoption.  As has been made clear, this is a segment of the population where the walls of virtue have already been breached, and immorality rushes in like a flood. 

Throughout history, cultures have affirmed the value of traditional marriage as between one man and one woman.  No major world religion or society has recognized the validity of homosexual marriage until just recently.¹³ We’ve seen the good reasons that are behind this rejection of same-sex marriage, on a sociological basis as well as a religious one.  Our nation has historically held tight to traditional marriage.  In the 19^th century, when the LDS Church was practicing polygamy, the U.S. government passed anti-polygamy laws for the good of society.  The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed these laws as constitutional, and the LDS Church was forced to abandon this practice (at least on this side of the “Celestial Kingdom”).  Now however, we find ourselves again in a fight for the sanctity and societal good of traditional marriage.  Homosexuals want an exception carved out of this order.  Should homosexuals be allowed to marry, then under the due process clauses of the constitution there would be nothing to stop others who wish to engage in bestial marriages, plural marriages, incestuous marriages, or pedophilic marriages.  Yet we don’t even need to resort to the slippery slope argument, however valid it may be.  History has shown the wisdom of rejecting same-sex marriage, and the sociological arguments for traditional marriage are at least as compelling as the religious ones.  Our children and our society are too important to sacrifice on the altar of inclusiveness.    

Notes:

1.  http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

2.  Ibid.

3.  50-State Survey Of Marriage Protection Amendments, Traditional Values Coalition, Updated November 2008, http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450.

4.  Homosexual Marriage: A Social Science View, Dr. Laura A Haynes, Oct 5, 2008, p. 1; http://www.narth.com/docs/CPASSAmarriage.pdf .

5.  Ibid, p. 2.

6.  Ibid, p. 2.

7.  Ibid, p. 2.

8.  McWhierter, D.P. and Mattison, A.M. (1984). The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

9. Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., and Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

10. Bell, A.P. and Weinberg, M.S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women, New York: Simon and Schuster.

11. Haynes, p. 3.

12.  Freund, K., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200.

13.  World Religions and Same-Sex Marriage: A Research Summary from the Marriage Law Project. Last Updated: July 2002. Last Accessed 1/4/2009 from http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/publications/wrr.pdf.