In my column entitled The Five Defining Features of Marriage, the anatomical complementary nature and the procreative potential of heterosexual marriage was highlighted. My unapologetic claim, both then and now, is that procreation is undeniably a key component of true marriage.
There will be a few repeated points from the earlier article mentioned above. However, since the homosexual activists have perfected indoctrination-style repetition to a science, we must therefore counteract their brainwashing tactics through some persistent instruction of our own. If they have succeeded in deceiving society by mindlessly parroting a cunning lie, then we need to relentlessly administer the antidote of truth as well. Therefore, what follows are some answers to three of the typical homosexual objections to Christian teaching on this specific subject.
CHRISTIAN CLAIM: Marriage is about procreation, or it is certainly an important part of marriage.
HOMOSEXUAL TALKING POINT: If that’s true, then the infertile and the elderly should also be prevented from getting married.
THE RESPONSE: As for the infertile or elderly couple, whenever they engage in sexual intimacy, they are still acting in accordance with sexual compatibility because they are utilizing the sexual organs as biologically designed. The sexual relationship of any infertile couple remains functionally equivalent, even though the reproductive organs are not functioning equivalently. Or to put it another way, they are procreative in type, but not effect.
Marriage is also about procreation in the same way that traffic lights are about safety. There are exceptions to procreation for heterosexual couples, and there are instances of people running red lights without anyone getting hurt. But does that mean we should recklessly eliminate all such traffic laws? Of course not! The general rule still holds. Likewise, marriage laws shouldn’t be altered due to the more rare exceptions.
Although procreation remains the general rule for opposite-sex couples at least during some period of their relationship, it will always remain impossible for same-sex couples unless unethically aided by medical intervention or “gay” adoptions. (In vitro fertilization becomes unethical when it enables homosexuals to falsely mimic legitimate marriage. As for the shortcomings associated “gay” adoptions, see the discussion on homosexual parenting below.) In the end, infertility is biologically incidental to some heterosexual unions, but it is biologically intrinsic to counterfeit “marriages.”
Christians are also not claiming that all heterosexual marriages must have children to be validated, but we are asserting that only heterosexual marriages have the potential to naturally produce children. Moreover, there is a big difference between intentionally choosing a relationship that cannot biologically produce children, and one that unintentionally experiences infertility.
To put it succinctly: Defining marriage as one man-one woman is not bigotry; it’s biology.
CHRISTIAN CLAIM: As the product of procreation, children have a right to both a mom and a dad.
HOMOSEXUAL TALKING POINT: If that’s true, then divorced or single parents should not be allowed to have children either.
THE RESPONSE: In March of last year, a group from my church went to the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. As my college-aged daughter was later reviewing our photos from the event, she expressed her dislike of the National Organization for Marriage signs that we were carrying. In particular, she objected to the one which stated, “Every Child Deserves a Mom and Dad.” Although my daughter does not support unnatural “marriage,” she immediately noted that there are many reasons that a child might not have both parents. So, on the surface of things, this particular homosexual talking point might appear to have some merit.
However, this merely illustrates the inherent weakness of placard or bumper sticker wisdom, which can often open the door to predictable homosexual counterarguments. That’s why it is very critical for us to inform people of the finer points of any Christian position.
A child might grow up without one biological parent for a variety of reasons. For instance, there’s death, divorce, conception via premarital sex or other types of parental separation (military service, jail time).
However, even with death, the surviving spouse can still remarry; with divorce, reconciliation or restoration (divine forgiveness and remarriage) are possible; with premarital sex, there is nothing precluding a future marriage; and other types of separation are not necessarily permanent in all cases. With same-sex couples, on the other hand, a child is deliberately and permanently denied the hope of ever having a parent of one gender or the other.
Although a heterosexual parent may ultimately remain single for whatever reason, that should not be viewed as a justification for purposefully establishing gender-deficient relationships. Upholding natural marriage will not eliminate all heterosexual parenting challenges, but legalized sodomy-based “marriage” will basically enshrine and exacerbate such problems. We shouldn’t haphazardly toss out the “baby (natural marriage) with the bath water (the less-than-ideal, lone parenting struggles of heterosexuals).” It’s one thing to have a social structure in place that is not altogether perfect, and it’s quite another, to institute one that is absolutely defective to the core.
Homosexual “unions” are inherently flawed in that they intentionally deprive children of their right to a parent of both genders. According to the militant homosexuals, one particular parent is disposable. But which one?
Trending: Democrats are God’s Judgement On America
Back in 2013, when the Minnesota state legislature was considering their same-sex “marriage” bill, the House committee members did not have an answer to a wise 11-year-old girl’s question regarding which parent is not needed.
“Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don’t think we can change that children need a mom and a dad. I believe God made it that way,” Grace Evans, 11, said before the Minnesota House Committee on Civil Law, “I know some disagree, but I want to ask you this question: Which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?”
She paused for eight seconds as the legislators on the committee sat in stunned silence.
Evans then repeated, “I’ll ask again, which parent do I not need – my mom or my dad?”
She paused again, this time for 13 seconds of silence from state lawmakers.
Evans concluded, “I hope that you can see that every child needs a mom and a dad. Please don’t change your law on marriage to say otherwise.”
You can watch Grace Evan’s bold testimony below:
As Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage stated, “It’s bad enough when families break down through divorce or death, but it’s unconscionable when a state encourages this through policies that deprive children of the love of both a mother and a father.”
In other words, tragedies sometimes occur even in heterosexual families, but we shouldn’t guarantee that a tragedy will occur by codifying counterfeit genderless “marriage” into law. Children at least deserve the opportunity to have both parents, which brings me right back to the NOM sign that my daughter didn’t like. Maybe it would have been more accurate if it had read, “Every Child Deserves [the opportunity to have] a Mom and Dad.” With faux same-sex “marriage,” though, no such opportunity exists.
CHRISTIAN CLAIM: A mother and a father provide a child with the best nurturing environment.
HOMOSEXUAL TALKING POINT: Studies now show that children raised in same-sex households do as well, if not better, than their opposite-sex counterparts.
THE RESPONSE: To be clear, nobody is intending to imply that homosexual parenting always produces inferior results. Yet, generally speaking, children raised in opposite-sex homes do on average fare much better. Then, what about all of the pro-homosexual parenting studies that have been circulating around?
Let’s take a look at one of these studies, purporting to prove the equal effectiveness of homosexual parenting. The fairly recent U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) (2011) is one of the most highly touted studies, and it basically claims that “children raised by lesbian mothers…scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior.” However, this study is plagued by serious questions regarding its lack of objectivity and numerous methodological flaws. For example, the following problems are immediately evident: 1. Those who conducted the NLLFS are not scholars in the field of child development or family formation. 2. The study was funded by highly partisan groups such as the Gill Foundation, one of the world’s largest and most influential financial supporters of LGBTQ political and social causes. 3. Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the principal investigator for this study, is a lesbian activist with strong ideological inclinations and activities. 4. A small sample size (84 lesbian families and 78 children). 5. Snowball sampling was utilized, in which the subjects of the study were solicited via lesbian newspapers and lesbian events. 6. The sample is not representative of a cross-section of society (nearly all were white, middle/upper class, college educated, urban dwellers, etc.). and 7. The mothers were asked to self-report on their children’s well-being and development. (The actual children that this study is supposed to represent were never given the opportunity to provide their own personal input.)
In 2012, sociologist Lauren Marks of Louisiana State University conducted a detailed re-analysis of the 59 studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parenting by the American Psychological Association. Marks debunked the APA’s claim that “not a single study has found children of lesbian and ‘gay’ parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” He pointed out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA actually met their own stated statistical standards, and “not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or ‘gay’ parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married [heterosexual] parents and their children.” Ultimately, Marks concluded that the APA drew conclusions that were not empirically warranted.
Much more reliable studies, conducted by Mark Regnerus, Douglas Allen, Theodora Sirota, Lauren Marks, D.W. Harris, and Paul and Kirk Cameron (not the actor), however, have clearly illustrated the inherent inadequacies and, in some instances, the harm that is suffered by children who are raised in same-sex households. For obvious reasons, none of these studies have been warmly received by the homosexual community. To the contrary, these studies have been the constant target of homosexual slander and vitriol. For example, following a smear campaign intended to discredit his study, Mark Regnerus was completely vindicated following an independent and internally initiated University of Texas (Austin) academic inquiry, much to the consternation of the radical homosexual activists.
Moreover, in a Wall Street Journal article, entitled “A Social Experiment Without Science Behind It,” George Mason University law professor Nelson Lund wrote about the superiority of the Regnerus study, which demonstrated that the children of homosexuals did worse on 77 out of 80 outcomes measured. As Lund noted with regards to the Regnerus study, “It has been vociferously attacked on methodological grounds by the same organizations that tout the value of politically congenial research that suffers from more severe methodological shortcomings. This is what one expects from activists, not scientists.”
After reviewing the evidence on both sides of the debate, California State University (Northridge) Professor Robert Oscar Lopez, who was himself raised by two lesbians, also stated emphatically, “Same-sex parenting isn’t merely controversial or untested; we know that children have poorer life outcomes when they are raised outside a married biological-parent household.”
Simply put, there is no positive spin that anyone can put on the severely methodologically flawed studies purporting to prove the qualitative equivalence of same-sex parenting. When marriage becomes all about adult desires, it will inevitably lead to parenting deficiencies. And our children are way too precious to be the unwitting victims of another ill-advised liberal social experiment gone awry. They deserve so much better.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.