Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?
This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman.
But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract.
Government Is Involved in Marriage Because It Creates Babies
People have forgotten that the defining feature of marriage, the thing that makes marriage marriage, is the sexual complementarity of the people involved. Marriage is often correctly viewed as an institution deeply rooted in religious tradition. But people sometimes forget that marriage is also based in science. When a heterosexual couple has sex, a biological reaction can occur that results in a new human life.
Government got into the marriage business to ensure that these new lives are created in a responsible manner. This capacity for creating new life is what makes marriage special. No matter how much we try, same-sex couples will never be able to create a new life. If you find that level of inequality offensive, take it up with Mother Nature. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.
A Good Dad Puts Kids First
Same-sex relationships not only lack the ability to create children, but I believe they are also suboptimal environments for raising children. ... But the first rule of fatherhood is that a good dad will put the needs of his children before his own—and every child needs a mom and a dad. Period. I could never forgive myself for ripping a child away from his mother so I could selfishly live out my dreams.
Same-sex relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother. This hardly seems fair. So much of what we do as a society prioritizes the needs of adults over the needs of children. Social Security and Medicare rob the young to pay the old. The Affordable Care Act requires young and healthy people to buy insurance to subsidize the cost for the old and sick. Our schools seem more concerned with keeping the teachers unions happy than they are educating our children. Haven’t children suffered enough to make adults’ lives more convenient? For once, it would be nice to see our society put the needs of children first. Let’s raise them in homes where they can enjoy having both a mom and a dad. We owe them that.
You have probably spotted that I didn't actually write this argument (which I agree with) since it is obviously written in an American context.
What you may not have spotted is the provenance from which the argument comes. Read the whole piece here ... you might be surprised :)
32 comments:
"Same-sex relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother."
No they don't! Where on earth did that idea come from?
There is the ideal of 'marriage' in other contexts. Just read Scripture!
In fact 'the Marriage Feast of the Lamb' is neither about gender nor sexuality. You cannot just highjack a word (marriage) and say its out of bounds to anyone other than a heterosexual couple.
Hi Ron
I am confused by your comment.
1. When a same sex couple (without prior children) somehow bring a child into their relationship, just where is the parent of the opposite sex? Are they absent or not?
2. There is no "hijacking" of the word 'marriage' when the word in the context of earthly, human society has always meant 'man and woman as one flesh' and people insist it continues to mean that.
3. What is the connection between the 'marriage feast of the Lamb' and same sex marriage? Given that all biblical talk about marriage and Christ is talk predicated on the earthly marriages of men and women, some move from invoking marriage as imagery for Christ's relationship to the church to support for same sex marriage has no logic that I can see.
" invoking marriage as imagery for Christ's relationship to the church to support for same sex marriage has no logic that I can see." Dr. P.Carrell -
- Both contexts are speaking of 'marriage' as a loving, faithful relationship. Also:
"Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships?" - P.C. -
Because 'marriage' has a connotation of a legally recognised relationship.
Hi Peter,
I am not sure what credence I would give to an article that is published under a pseudonym, by an author who is too scared to use his real name. The excuse that he uses for such intellectual cowardice is that he is frightened of retribution by the ”Gaystapo”.
We are, unfortunately, unable to check the educational qualifications of “Paul Rosnick”, since he hides his intellectual background as well. It is thus difficult to work out with what authority he speaks as a gay male on the subject of same-sex marriage, or, indeed, to speak for the great unheard multitude of conservative gays and lesbians, who are apparently either opposed to, or ambivalent to the institution of same-sex marriage
“I'm not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don't hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo.”
It is impossible to determine whether the writer is in fact male, or even gay. Undoubtedly the author is conservative, and if gay would either be described as a “Log Cabin” gay or a “white picket fence” gay. The first term refers to a group of Gay Republicans and the other to a group of conservative political gays, who just want to be like everyone else and have a home behind a white picket fence.
It is obvious that the author's knowledge of gay politics is rudimentary and that his(?) knowledge of the political history of marriage and what marriage is about borders on the non existent. Whilst you may agree, Peter, with the sentiments voiced in this article I would more happy critiquing them if you would provide us with more than will of the wisp straw-man as an authority.
Regards
Michael Primrose
Christchurch
Hi Michael
I agree that there may be some kind of fakery to be reckoned with here; though writing in the US context, I do not think the expressed fear of the 'Gaystapo' is untoward: I note a story in recent days of a gay couple who hosted Ted Cruz to a dinner only to find themselves the subject of intense pressure from fellow gay activists to the point where they have repented of their 'sins'!!
I imagine, also, that there might be a difference between the US and NZ over whether a majority of gay persons do or do not support same sex marriage. Here in NZ I am not aware that the claim this US author makes would be made in our context.
Hi Ron
Yes, I see your logic. But is it the logic of Scripture itself? In Ephesians 5 - read today in Morning Prayer! - the emphasis in the analogy between man/woman marriage and Christ/church as bride of Christ falls on the concept of 'headship' within the subtle intricacies of male and female relationships.
Hi Peter,
If you look at the details of contributors for the Federalist you will find the following
“Benjamin Domenech is the publisher of The Federalist and writes The Transom, a daily subscription newsletter for political insiders. Domenech also serves as a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute. He was previously editor in chief of The City, an academic journal on faith and culture. He also worked as a speechwriter for HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas. He co-founded Redstate, was co-host of Coffee & Markets, an award-winning economic podcast, and appears regularly on Fox News, MSNBC, and The Blaze. He lives in Virginia.”
As you are no doubt aware the Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago. The Heartland Institute is a prominent supporter of global warming sceptics, and is "the primary American organization pushing climate change scepticism," according to the New York Times. We can therefore assume that the author of the article you quote is conservative, and perhaps even trends towards a bit of tea-baggery.
The majority of recent articles on the Federalist seem to be concerned with attacking Hillary Clinton's Presidential bid. Not what I would have call a reliable intellectual source, all things considered.
As to Senator Ted Cruz, whom John McCain once referred to as "wacko bird", I presume you are talking about the “fireside chat” (not a “fund raising”) that Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, two wealthy gay hoteliers, hosted Cruz and his wife at their Manhattan apartment last week. Apparently the hosts and the Senator were “on point on every issue that has to do with national security” with respect to the Middle East and in “strong disagreement” over the question of gay marriage.
Reading between the lines the hoteliers were fine with the pro-Isreal stance of the Senator, but got caught out on social media over hosting an opponent of same-sex marriage. This resulted in a couple of grandly operatic mea culpas from the hoteliers concerned, who have apparently been big financial supporters of gay rights.
Obviously Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass had forgotten the old adage “Those who sup with the Devil should use a long spoon” and the difficulty of riding two politically opposed horses at the same time. One has little sympathy that they got sprung and more amusement at their grovelling recantations.
As to the question of the level of support, or otherwise, within the New Zealand LGBTQI community towards same sex marriage, I would have thought that the Anglican Church, given that it is currently discussing the measure, might have thought to ask the people most concerned with their deliberations, as to their attitudes. However, I am renowned for my naive simplicity of mind, at times.
Regards
Michael Primrose
Christchurch
"I am confused by your comment.
1. When a same sex couple (without prior children) somehow bring a child into their relationship, just where is the parent of the opposite sex? Are they absent or not?" - Peter Carrell -
Peter. Who said anything about children? They don't have to be included in a marriage. Not yet anyway!
Hi Ron
Okay, I now see the point you made above and reiterate now (children not absolutely necessary for marriage); but my point remains, when marriage involves children (as most marriages through most of time have done; when regulation of marriage by government has mostly to date been about regulating the context in which children are brought up), the question arises about same sex marriage, where is the 'other gender' parent?
Both Fr. Ron and Michael have said what needs to be said.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Hello, Peter, browsing on the web, I found this link which says an awful lot about how Same-Sex Marriage might affect the current situation of marriage as we now know it:
https://www.facebook.com/15247855753/photos/a.159112490753.129465.15247855753/10151375207835754/?type=1
(I tried to post earlier today, but I tripped up on "captcha," so I don't think it went through. Apologies, if it did).
Whether a same-sex couple should be allowed to marry is a separate question from whether they should have children. On the first question I'm at the point where I cannot find a good reason to oppose a civil marriage by a same-sex couple. I'm not so sure about church ceremonies for same-sex couples. I still have to figure that one out.
On the second question, the biggest factors leading to the absence of one biological parent are divorce and single parenthood.
Also, even if children being raised by both biological parents may generally be the ideal, there are situations where it may not be possible or desirable.
I think the sticking point for me is the theology, is homosexual activity a sin or not right in God's eyes, or is it? And I think the conviction from the Holy Spirit and Biblical study needs to be clearer than it is for the status quo on marriage to change at present.
To remove discussion a degree look at a different topic - all religions lead to God. There was a point where I wanted this to be the case. Why? Because I loved someone of another Faith. However, I came to the conclusion that however much I wanted it to be true it wasn't. There was only "one way to the Father through the Son" as threaded through the OT and the NT and convicting me. So accepting this did not make me a religiousophobic (many of my friends came from other religious backgrounds, nor did it translate into a lack of love for some people), it was simply a hard truth but one of God's determining for our ultimate benefit. We reject his Son, we reject the way he has opened to people for Salvation. There are also many awkward questions to this position too, like what about those who were born into a different religion surely it's not their fault?
In an interview, often misquoted, the ABC was being hammered into giving his views on the blessing of homosexual marriages. You could see his pained expression. He said he didn't really want to comment because ultimately it was for the church as a whole to work out together not for him to individually say. However, he did express how he has seen the graves of 300 plus christians who were killed because of the publicity of a western church ordaining homosexuals (the western church of course is not directly responsible, but the threat faced by the christians in that country from such media is deadly real) , and that alternatively in the UK he agonised over having to say no to two people who loved each other. In quiet voice he ends by saying at this point when I look at scripture I would have to say no, I do not think it (same sex blessings) will [should] happen. It would be hard to label him homophobic or accuse him of a lack of love.
I have no doubt as Michael Primrose points out that there are many views within the LGBT (& I - what does I stand for) regarding marriage. However, to prefer marriage to be reserved for heterosexual relationships is no less a valid opinion for a homosexual person than to not. Others obviously share this view and have been put down for it as per the D&B, Elton John debarcle. I think Michael that the ensuing Motion 30 debates in the Anglican Church would include interaction within the LGBT community who are members of the church.
In terms of children. Yes Paul there are many reasons why one biological parent is missing and many families are not ideal. However, being one of these children I would have to say this does not mean we want to encourage more. Notwithstanding same sex relationships with children add an extra dimension or two. It was hard not knowing my birth Father. I cannot fathom what it would have been like being told he was a sperm donor. If there was a choice, in the best interests of the child, I would not go there - homosexual or heterosexual.
Blessings
Jean
"Jean said...
I think the sticking point for me is the theology, is homosexual activity a sin or not right in God's eyes, or is it? And I think the conviction from the Holy Spirit and Biblical study needs to be clearer than it is for the status quo on marriage to change at present."
And, if course, Jean; it really depends on who you think the Holy Spirit is speaking through in today's Church - remembering that "When the Spirit comes, he will LEAD you into all the truth - about me - about sin"
In speaking of children without their biological parents; there is such a plethora of documented evidence about children abused by their own parents that it might be more acceptable for children to be raised by a stable S/S couple who actually wants the special privilege of raising a child - in a loving home. It's love that matters more than the gender of the parents!
Hi Ron (at 11.43 am)
Yet the comments below the post make some important responses.
Not least that if marriage is between a man and a woman, then it is being redefined if two men or two women marry!
Hi Ron
Yes it does depend who you think the Holy Spirit is speaking through : ). I think He can speak to all Christians. So for me it is a matter of being personally convicted by the Holy Spirit regarding sin as you say. The second area is clarity in what scripture is saying. It seems to me personally at the moment that within the church there is much confusion regarding the latter. It is both these aspects that make me hesitant.
In respect to children it would be simple matter or decision if the choice was placing abused children into loving same sex or heterosexual partnerships. Unfortunately this is not practically possible. It is also imperative to see that, being human as we all are, there is no guarantee same sex attracted people will be exempt from being abusers of children.
Love matters, it does indeed. The difficulty is I believe children are wired to be connected with their biological parents, even abused children can still love their parents. This can also be evidenced through the rejection trauma some adoptive children deal with despite having being adopted at birth. These situations happen for reasons good and bad, I just advocate that 'choosing' beforehand that a child would live separate from a biological parent is not in the best interests of that child.
Cheers
Jean
I think you will find, Jean; that children adopted by Same-Sex couples would either belong to one or other of the couple - or, would adopt someone whose parents were unable or unwilling to look after them. This is a rescue situation - infinitely preferable to being brought up in an orphanage.
Hi Ron
Your last comment I think may be based on assuming the ideal rather than the real.
The two same sex attracted couples I know who have children; one couple had artificial insemination; one couple share custody with the father (the ex-husband of one of the two).
Blessings
Jean
Hi Ron,
We can all recognise pragmatic advantages to possibilities such as a same sex couple adopting a child whom no one else will adopt.
The key moral question, however, which you are singularly avoiding to answer, is whether it is an act of love to knowingly arrange for a child to be conceived who will be brought up without a mother or father (as the case may be).
The answer to this question has nothing to do with whether some heterosexual couples abuse their children etc etc. It has everything to do with whose interests are being put first, the parents or the child's.
Asa priest in the church of God advocating for change, I think it fair to ask for your view on this precise question as quite a lot turns on it in respect of the church of God determining whether or not the Spirit is leading it to bless same sex partnerships as marriages.
"The key moral question, however, which you are singularly avoiding to answer, is whether it is an act of love to knowingly arrange for a child to be conceived who will be brought up without a mother or father (as the case may be)."
Hi Peter,
I presume that this is merely the latest of the high moral challenges, that will be put in the way of same-sex marriage, by it's opponents. I will admit that it is almost as amusing as the belief that the same-sex couples who will get married in the Anglican Church are not only monogamous,loving but will also be celibate. This only leads to the disbelieving comment, "As if!"
I would have to make that comment now of the idea that all children within normative heterosexual marriages, or relationships, are conceived in Love. Mice thought, but it does tend to avoid the rough and sometimes brutal reality of sexuality within opposite-sex marriages.
Male lust and indeed male rape within marriage can hardly be considered as being examples of the Loving conception of a child between a husband and a wife. And yet I hear no calls for the banning of opposite-sex marriages simply because of numerous aberrations that occur within the concept.
If a loving, infertile couple seeks to have a child by means of a sperm or egg donor, are we to mount our collective pulpits and thunderously denounce them, because the child is conceived in Love with the help of a third party. The child will not even be raised by its biological parents, but only by its loving ones, so therefore they should be criticised and condemned.
And consider the lowly single mother, who struggles to bring up a child without the help of a father, biological or otherwise. Obviously, another case for clerical damnation and displeasure.
There does seem to be rather a lot of Hate about in the Church, but it would be nice to see some Love, at times.
The real problem here is that the airs and variations of human sexuality are incredibly complex and the ways that human beings put together their sexual, and sometimes loving, relations are multitudinous, and the Church, and many of its clerics, are like a fish out of water when discussing it.
The Church puts forward this Disney-like concept of a perfect family, with a father and a mother and two kids, presumably called Dick and Jane, and then proposes this example as the ideal to which we must all adhere and to strive to achieve..
It never was like that, even in Biblical times, and it certainly isn't now. The Church should really remove itself from the discussion of human sexuality, because, to be honest, it seems, too many times, to have no idea what on Earth it is talking about.
For most sensible people, the last thing that they would want in the privacy of their own bedroom, or where ever one prefers to have sex, is the local vicar, standing alongside the bed or the couch, mouthing platitudes and ideals.
Michael Primrose
Christchurch
Leaving aside the question of whether a same-sex couple (or a single person) should have children, I disagree with the premise that having children is the principal purpose for marriage. As the 1662 BCP teaches us, having children is just one of its purposes:
"DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined."
"The key moral question, however, which you are singularly avoiding to answer, is whether it is an act of love to knowingly arrange for a child to be conceived who will be brought up without a mother or father (as the case may be)."
If this were a question, Peter, of children being 'parented' in the way you are suggesting - by Same-Sex couples exclusively, I would then understand your objection on the grounds of S/S/ parenting.
However, as you and I well know; the vast majority of children who come into this specific category are parented by heterosexual couples who, for any number of reasons, cannot or will not conceive children by the
normal' method. This is not exclusively a Same-Sex issue. It has a much broader societal base!
Hi Ron and Michael (Primrose);
The ethical issues around choosing to have children through sperm donors or a 'third party' isn't exclusively a homosexual issue. Although most infertile couples will choose artificial insemination as the most popular alternative if they can't conceive. It arises in debates because this is the only way, except adoption and prior relationships, by which all homosexual couples can have children.
Regardless of fthe gender of the couple I still re-iterate such decisions have consequences for the children involved. It is for this reason, love of the child, not 'hate' that such situations warrant careful consideration. 'Hate speech' is increasingly becoming a loaded phrase used to instantly vilify people who hold different perspectives. Do not think prostitution is a healthy occupation equals hating prostitutes is a incorrect equation.
Yes there are single mothers and fathers and blended families. And of course not all heterosexual children are born into a loving relationship. It is through these examples we have learnt of the cost some of the children who grow up coming to terms aand working through issues associated with such situations.
Michael I have not encountered a church in my generation in which there is 'clerical damnation' of single mothers. I have encountered a lot of church organisations who are at the centre of helping abused children, offering meals to single parents and providing family support.
I do not see a careful look at the impact on children as a high moral challenge to get in the way of homosexual marriage/blessing. I see it as a necessary consideration. I know what it is like not knowing a biological parent. I know the ramifications are real, even though I was bought up with my mother and step-father in a stable environment.
The Anglican Church in NZ is currently discussing the issue of whether to bless same sex marriages not holding marriages; it is not limiting such blessed marriages if this is decided upon to celibacy nor will it determine the couples love for each other, only they can do that obviously.
Blessings
Jean
Hi Ron
Yes, the question has a much wider base and the question remains, ethically, in my view, whether a child should be brought into the world to not be brought up by its biological parents.
Hi Michael
I am happy to keep asking my question until someone gives me an answer. Neither your reply nor Ron does so, though I readily recognise that your reply answers some other questions and makes some other pertinent points.
I would like to be part of a church where one can raise questions without being charged with denouncing people.
If I ask of myself whether an action I am contemplating undertaking is moral or not, I do not think I am thereby denouncing myself.
I ask again, in slightly different words, but only so I can be (I hope) clearer:
is intentionally bringing a child into the world to not be brought up by its two biological parents an act of love towards the child?
Peter, I feel the force of your question, being the grandparent of such a child. I'm not prepared to say any more about that, except to say that I'm conflicted about the issue.
Tim
Thanks Tim
I assume I might give the same response were I in the same position as you! (Grandchildren are an abstract issue, one could say, for me at present.)
I am grateful that you recognise there is a question to ponder.
Hi Tim
Your position is completely understandable. It is one thing to objectively look at a topic in its widest sense and discuss its ethics and implications. It is another to be subjectively involved on a personal level.
I have my own subjective experience which I use as an example but try and keep it balanced by the overall picture.
Regardless of the ethics, the decision in the case of your grandchild has been made, and they are no doubt blessed to have you in their life.
All the best,
Jean
Hi All
It could be that folk such as me and Jean are out on some kind of unpopular limb.
But if so, I offer this reflection: we have now reached a point in the life of the Western church where moral guidance via church teachers is neither sought nor welcomed. That is, the moral autonomy of individuals/individual couples is unchallengeable.
Or am I missing something as I reflect on contributions being made here by Michael, Paul and Ron?
I can't speak for Michael (and I know better than to try to speak for Ron). On the issue of children, I think you and I are pretty much in agreement. I also have concerns about someone deliberately setting out to have a child where the parent of one sex or the other is not in the picture (regardless of the parents' sexual orientation). Still I know of situations where children have been adopted and raised by single parents or by same-sex couples with much more love and care than they received from their biological parents.
On the issue of issue of same-sex marriage, I'm more conflicted. I think it's more accurate to say that at this point, I'm not opposed to same-sex civil marriage, but I'm still not sure that the Church should be formally blessing them. What I find singularly unconvincing is "Paul's" argument that marriage is only (or even primarily) for children
Hi Paul
I agree with you regarding civil marriage ceremonies. One could not expect secular society, and those who do not hold to Christian teaching or theology, to make decisions based upon these beliefs.
I am probably mostly on the same page with you regarding marriage also. After all it was because it was not good for Adam to be alone that woman was created. There is of course the then now go forth and multiply and then talk of descendants galore! So I would say it is not the primary reason for marriage but one of the biblical reasons, in the sense of children being a blessing.
All the best
It has just occurred to me to mention one particular marriage relationship wherein the child was the product of the mother and not the adoptive Father.
In Scripture (which many claim to be the paradigm of child-parenting)', this was the status of the Lord of the Church,Jesus, whose mother, Mary, conceived her son independently of her husband!!! A case of mixed parentage at Scripture's heart!
And if the local Jewish community had known of this, what scandal might not have been put into motion?
Post a Comment