The illogical concept of homosexual marriage - biology says no!
Not wanting to state the obvious – there are considerable differences in these relationships, the most apparent one being that men and women are undeniably dissimilar. ‘‘Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus’’ as one author put it. The union of a man and a woman brings a complementarity at a completely different level to that of two men and two women. The strengths and weaknesses of each gender offer a ‘‘completing’’ like no other relationship.
The second elephant in the room is the fact that a male and female can reproduce. It is a general truth that children are a natural product of a marriage relationship. Marriage brings a permanence and stability to a couple and the children they bear that impacts the whole of society – that is why governments have an interest in regulating marriage.
We live in an imperfect world and due to things like death and divorce children do experience the tragedy of broken relationships. However, in the case of children entering same-sex relationships, brokenness is a necessity. This occurs either relationally, from the separation of their biological parents, or through the genetic and biological brokenness of assisted reproductive technologies where mums or dads are very often unknown gamete donors.
Putting it succinctly, condoning same-sex marriage normalises brokenness in children’s lives. The question begging is ... is it acceptable for the rights of children to be put second to the desires of adults? ‘‘The rights of children trump the right to children’’ say gay fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana. Forums like anonymousus.org, which tell the often painful stories of donor-conceived children, confirm that answer.
These two distinctives of marriage – complementarity and children – have been contested in this debate from day one. ‘‘Equality’’ necessitates that these differences be delegitimised – and that’s exactly what has been happening.
The removal of gender-differentiating language is one example. Words like wife and husband have been replaced by gender-neutral ‘‘partner’’. Mums and dads have been superseded with parent one and parent two.
Other differentiating language has also been in the firing line. ‘‘Discrimination’’ used to be considered at least somewhat positively – after all we all do it every day – which shops we choose to buy from, who we allow our kids to have sleepovers with. Not any more, the ‘‘D’’ word is always a negative and is often the first word heard from the mouths of traditional marriage dissenters.
Another battle has raged in the area of research. If these two kinds of relationships are really the same then outcomes for children in married homes should be equivalent to children raised by same-sex couples.
As you would expect there is an overwhelming body of research pointing to the fact that children do best across the spectrum of sociological indicators with married, biological parents. Those who have published credible studies highlighting deficiencies in same-sex parenting have been savaged by gay lobby groups.
Twenty years ago, the arguments against redefining marriage were taken for granted. Today due to the ‘‘new tolerance’’, boundaries are construed as bigotry and commonsense as backward thinking. I have hope that as a society we will come to our senses and once again appreciate and protect the universal cultural norms like marriage that have made civil society what it is today.
Mark Brown is the Tasmanian Director of the Australian Christian Lobby.
