The Scientific Case Against Homosexual “Marriage”

By BRIAN CLOWES

Part 1

(Editor’s Note: Brian Clowes has been director of research and training at Human Life International since 1995. For a footnoted copy of this three-part article, e-mail him at bclowes@hli.org.

+    +    +

The debate over homosexual “marriage” is radically different from the discussions surrounding abortion, pornography, and euthanasia. To begin with, the arguments regarding same-sex “marriage” appear at first to be very ill-defined. This means that most people do not know how to research the issue and quietly go along with the “pro-gay” slogans repeated endlessly by the media.
Another reason the discussion over homosexual “marriage” does not generate as much passion as the other issues is that “marriage” between two men or two women does not at first appear to have any obvious victims — unlike abortion, pornography, and euthanasia.
The problem for defenders of marriage is that the dire impacts of homosexual unions will not become evident for years, or possibly even decades. These include the corrosion of more basic rights such as free speech and freedom to associate, injury to children, further degradation of the family, and decreased life expectancy. Eventually, homosexual “marriage” will be an integral part of the social and legal landscape and will be very difficult to fight.
Additionally, most people have become convinced by the constant drumbeat of propaganda that, if they oppose same-sex “marriage,” they are bigots and haters. Why should anyone stand in the way of two people who just want to be happy? Are the glossy, mass-produced picket signs true? Isn’t love — of any kind — just love?
“Bigots” are people who possess unshakable prejudices that have no basis in fact. This means that people who oppose “gay marriage” without being able to explain why are, by definition, bigots. So let us shake off our bigotry — not by blindly accepting everything the homosexual Napoleons try to shove down our throats, but by educating ourselves as to why ersatz “marriage” between two men or two women is a very bad idea.
The Fundamental Principle. First of all, why is homosexual “marriage” a bad idea? Why should we care if two men or two women who love each other get “married”? Whom does it hurt?
We must begin by recognizing that the two sides in this discussion are asking completely different questions and are approaching it from two completely different angles.
Proponents of homosexual “marriage” present a purely emotional appeal. They make vague assertions that are difficult to refute, such as: “It’s unfair to deny marriage to two people who love each other.” By contrast, those who oppose “marriage” between people of the same sex employ logic and science, and ask questions like, “Is it good for society?” and “What impact does it have on children?”
The discussion over homosexual “marriage” is an intensely practical matter, because history shows us that every society that disregards marriage or dilutes its meaning will eventually fall apart. Many nations are far into this process today; for example, Japan and the Russian Federation will lose more than half of their populations long before the end of this century.
We must also care about our children. Every reputable study ever done has proven that a child grows up best with a mother and a father. Not just a mother. Not just a father. Not two or three fathers or two or three mothers. A father and a mother.
Homosexual “marriage” is just the latest step in the discarding of the true meaning of marriage. During the “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960s, we demanded contraception so that we could have sex without children. Although we did not realize it at the time, this was actually the most important step of all in the push for homosexual “marriage.”
After all, once the idea of marriage existing for the sake of procreating and nurturing children was dismissed, there was no reason at all to keep it limited to one man and one woman. It becomes an empty vessel, useful only for sex and pleasure and monetary benefits. Birth control led to an explosion of “recreational sex” outside of marriage, which naturally led to most people having a number of sexual partners before getting married. People inevitably carried this lax attitude about sex into their marriages as well, and, since adultery proliferated, they demanded free and easy “no-fault” divorce.
Now some elements of the media and well-funded interest groups are demanding that polygamy, “polyamory,” incest, child sexual molestation, and even bestiality be legalized.
Same-sex “marriage” will not cause the disintegration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it.
There Is No Such Thing As “Traditional Marriage.” What we have today is a conflict between two rival concepts of marriage. There is “natural” marriage, which is defined by two qualities. The first is its unitive quality, which means that the husband and the wife promise to be faithful to each other to the exclusion of all others unto death. The second is its procreative nature, which means that the husband and the wife leave their marital bond open to the possibility of new life at all times.
Then there is the revisionist view, which defines it as a loving emotional bond between partners “as long as love lasts.”
As one advocate of “new” marriage wrote, “The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less ‘correct’ than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults….So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States — and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.”
“New” marriage advocates see it as nothing more than a vehicle for adult happiness, fulfillment, and enjoyment. When people believe this, divorce becomes inevitable when happiness or “love” fades. Commitment until parted by death has devolved into commitment until it is no longer fun.
Therefore, “new” marriage lacks both the unitive and procreative aspects, rendering it absolutely meaningless. It is not marriage at all.
Whatever similarities natural and “new” marriage might share are purely cosmetic, while their differences are vast.
While natural marriage is an outward-looking and objective institution, “new” marriage is inward-looking and subjective.
While natural marriage is based upon a permanent vow and is oriented primarily toward the founding of a family for the good of society, “new” marriage is based upon a temporary contract between two people who are “in love,” however they define it; it is oriented toward companionship and the enjoyment of the couple, with no regard for the welfare of the society or of children.

Complementarity

Or, to put it another way, natural marriage is founded upon certain solid and objective facts: The fact of the biological and psychological complementarily of the sexes; the fact of a solemn public vow made before God which is deemed to be actually binding for life, and not a mere ceremony; the fact that sexual union between members of the opposite sex leads naturally to children; the fact that children do best with both a mother and a father; and the fact that healthy, stable families are the necessary foundation of a healthy, stable society.
By contrast, “new” marriage is founded primarily on a subjective state: the feeling of being in love. So “new” marriage, based upon rubbery and flexible concepts, can be molded into anything one wants it to be.
There is no such thing as “traditional” marriage. To use this term is to accept the possibility that there might be other, “non-traditional” types of marriage, such as between two men, two women, or one man and several women. If there is “traditional” architecture, there must be non-traditional architecture. If there is a “traditional” style of art, then there must be “non-traditional” styles of art.
If you must use an adjective to clarify yourself, you could call a union between a man and a woman a “natural marriage” and a union between two people of the same sex a homosexual union or “marriage” (with quotes, to denote a fake, a counterfeit, a third-rate, tin-plated, half-baked, pale imitation of the real thing).
Perhaps the cruelest irony of all is that people who embrace natural marriage are almost always much happier than those who support “new” forms of “marriage.” We realize that, if we are to be happy, we must adjust our behavior to fit the unchanging and unyielding laws of nature. Homophiles make the tragic error of thinking they can adjust the laws of nature to fit their behavior and their endless wants.
The result is inevitable: A head-on collision with the brick wall of reality, which only results in heartache and unhappiness. This is a hard way to learn the inflexible rule that God always forgives, Man sometimes forgives, but Nature never forgives.
So — What Do We Do Now? Homosexual activists complain that people think they have an agenda. As homophile activist Frank Brown said, “I want to go to my job. I want to have a home. I want to save my money. And I want to go on vacation. What kind of ‘hidden agenda’ are they talking about”?
Other homophiles are more truthful. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said: “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and transforming the very fabric of society.”
Homosexuals don’t want the “white picket fence.” They want to burn down the white picket fence and the house behind it! Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen said: “It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry. But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie….‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction’.”
Already in many Western nations, homosexuals enjoy adoption and “marriage” rights. In these nations, there have been hundreds of incidents of people being fired from their jobs, physically attacked, prevented from speaking, and being coerced into acting against their wills by homosexual activists.
This is the agenda. This is what they want for you: to sideline you, to push you into a kind of closet, to make you the new perverts, the new queers.
This is the agenda, not marriage. And if you do nothing to try to stop it, if you do not lift your hands and voices to stop it, your children and your grandchildren will have to live with it and suffer because of it.
All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.

Band Together

But we can all do something. And, make no mistake, we all must do something or we will lose this fight.
Some fight homosexual “marriage” in the courts and some fight it in the streets. We have writers and speakers and artists. We have people who can debate the issues because that is their calling. Only a small percentage of people take on such high-profile tasks. The rest of us can contribute to the battle by educating those we know, and this is the most important work of all.
If we can reawaken people to the true purpose of marriage, if we can resist the efforts to mold marriage into a convenient vehicle for social revolution, if we can band together to ignite a true marriage renaissance, we will win.
The impacts of accepting the homosexual agenda are evil — not from a religious point of view, but from a scientific point of view. It hurts men. It hurts women. It hurts children. It hurts society. It hurts all of us.
Homosexuality corrupts and weakens the law because it protects and enshrines unhealthy sexual behavior and weakens more basic and fundamental freedoms. Homosexuality corrupts and weakens youth by telling them that they can practice any kind of sexual behavior they want. Homosexuality corrupts and weakens the family because it degrades natural marriage.
Above all, homosexuality corrupts and weakens religion by attacking it and trying to push it out of public life.

Know The Topic

We Christians have been too “nice,” and this is why we are losing the battle. We have believed the many tragic stories of homosexual victimization, only to find out that most of them are lies. We have watched as those braver than ourselves have been punished and ridiculed. We have been nice — and quiet — for much too long. We must be sympathetic and caring and polite, but the time for “niceness” is over.
The left considers us “nice” if we stay in our homes and our churches and just shut up. Are we willing to watch our families and our nation be destroyed just so certain people, perhaps even within our own families, will think we are “nice”?
Not only must we take action, we must also know the topic. It is not necessary to debate against homosexual “marriage” in religious terms. In fact, doing so is often worse than useless in a “secular society,” because many people will simply dismiss what we have to say if we approach them from a purely religious point of view.
Fortunately, it is not necessary to use a religious approach, since the Christian view on this topic, as with all of the moral issues, is strongly supported by science. It must be so, since the God who created is the God who reveals. Once we know the topic, we must speak out confidently against homosexual “marriage” to friends, family, coworkers, and people we attend church with.
Educate them like you educated yourself, and urge them to get involved if you think that they might be interested. Above all, do not be intimidated. Some people will call you “hateful,” “bigoted,” and worse. This is just a knee-jerk reaction by non-thinkers and those too ignorant or fearful to discuss the issues with you. Hold your ground, look them right in the eye, speak the truth, and they will wither away.
Take action, learn the topic, and finally, get organized! You are much more powerful working together than working separately. One person speaking out can be ignored; five working together may be ridiculed but cannot be ignored; 50 or 100 working together will be denounced but not ridiculed; but hundreds working and speaking together are so powerful that they will have to be taken seriously.
As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “First they ignore us; then they laugh at us; then they fight us; and then we win.”
The final two parts of this article will methodically and scientifically debunk the nine primary myths supporting homosexual “marriage.”