cpf_banner_small.gif (2059 bytes)
The
Fatherhood

Coalition

MC_Hammers_big.gif (5167 bytes)

Four Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Mark Charalambous, Nov. 23, 2003


Don’t look now, but the culture war has just ignited. Thanks to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the gutless wonders in the Statehouse, any debate on homosexual marriage in Massachusetts is now moot.  The issue is too important to be trusted to public debate or the caprices of their elected representatives.

On Monday, the SJC ruled that “the Legislature has no rational basis for treating [homosexuals] differently with respect to the granting of marriage licenses.”

Previously, the state legislature violated the state constitution twice by refusing to allow any debate or discussion on a successful statewide ballot initiative to amend the state constitution to establish marriage as the union of a man and a woman.


If homosexuality was not learned, adaptive behavior, one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all the incarcerated men and women who engage in homosexuality behind bars are actually latent homosexuals who merely required the necessary condition to discover their true nature. 

Following the wisdom of Margaret Marshall’s court, here, then, are several “irrational” arguments against gay marriage. This quartet of talking points, previously avoided by the legislature and now prohibited for discussion by the SJC’s ruling, will most likely receive similar treatment by the politically correct news media.

1.  The strongest argument favoring gay marriage relies on the claim that homosexuality is a condition of birth. From that ideological vantage point, the comparison is made to earlier prohibitions against interracial marriage.

The analogy, and the argument, are false. Homosexuality is overwhelmingly learned, adaptive behavior, not a condition of birth.  (True congenital homosexuality or sexual disorder might be best characterized as a birth defect.) Attempts to identify a “gay gene” have been fruitless.

If homosexuality was not learned, adaptive behavior, one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all the incarcerated men and women who engage in homosexuality behind bars are actually latent homosexuals who merely required the necessary condition to discover their true nature.  Common sense dictates that it is the unnatural conditions of imprisonment without access to opposite-sex partners that leads to homosexuality in jail. It results from the biological need for sexual gratification where there is no normal outlet.  Does homosexuality in people arise from something toxic in the social and/or cultural environment?


The institution of marriage and the biological family are not merely arbitrary social constructs tyrannically imposed on the homosexual minority by the heterosexual majority; they are civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction.

2. The institution of marriage and the biological family are not merely arbitrary social constructs tyrannically imposed on the homosexual minority by the heterosexual majority; they are civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction.

If homosexuality were a normal, biological condition it could not have survived two billion years of natural selection. For those who have difficulty with the word “normal,” a good working definition is “what functions according to design.”

3. If homosexuality results from environmental conditions, children raised by homosexual parents will be more likely to turn out gay than children raised by normal parents.  Should the collective will of the people in a democracy have a say in the nurturing of homosexuality in children?  

4. Homosexuality was indeed, widely practiced and considered more or less acceptable behavior in the pre-Christian, Greco-Roman world. But homosexual relationships were never considered equivalent, and never considered an alternative to marriage and the biological family.

 

Pro gay-marriage advocates admit that the court’s ruling and the Statehouse’s deliberate non-action are due to fear of popular opinion on the matter—which is overwhelmingly against gay marriage. 

But Margaret Marshall has unwittingly done opponents of gay marriage a favor. Because of the “full faith and credit clause” of the U.S. Constitution, gay marriage as a political issue has now been vaulted onto the national agenda.  It will be a pivotal issue in the next election, and waffling politicians whose highest aspiration is to be all things to all people will be forced to take a stand.  Prediction: this will not favor the Democrats.

The heterosexual majority is tolerant. Bigotry is un-American.  It is not our business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. But it is the social-engineering, moral-relativist elite that are intent on imposing its morality (or lack of) on all of us. 

# # #


cpf_home.gif (3511 bytes)