A review of One Man, One Woman. By Dale O’Leary.

Sophia Institute Press, 2007.

This book seeks to do two things: affirm the traditional understanding of heterosexual marriage, and challenge the homosexual offensive. Of course the two go together. There is probably no greater threat to the institutions of marriage and family than that posed by the militant homosexual lobby.

O’Leary rightly argues that the homosexual assault on marriage and family is part of a much bigger political and ideological onslaught which she terms the “Sexual Left”. It is a good designation, and refers to a number of malicious fellow travellers: the sexual liberationists, the radical feminists, the pro-abortion crowd, the population control movement, and the homosexual lobby.

Together these various activist groups and social engineers have been causing great harm to not just marriage and family, but to children and religious freedom as well. In this book O’Leary shows just how all these things are under attack, and demonstrates the importance of heterosexual marriage.

As to the issue of homosexuality, O’Leary covers all the bases. She challenges a number of myths that have long been peddled by the homosexual lobby and its supporters. These include the claim that 1 in 10 is homosexual; that homosexuality is genetically based, that homosexuals cannot change; that all relationships are of equal value; that children do just fine raised in same-sex households; and that the Bible does not condemn committed homosexual relationships.

Image of One Man, One Woman: A Catholics Guide to Defending Marriage
One Man, One Woman: A Catholics Guide to Defending Marriage by Dale O'Leary (Author) Amazon logo

Each of these claims is examined in some detail and found to be without factual basis. Consider the issue of same-sex parenting. Is it really true that family structure makes no difference to the outcome of children? The social science data clearly shows that family structure does matter.

The data is twofold: positively, the data shows how children thrive with two biological opposite-sex parents, and negatively, the data shows the harm done to children when raised in other households, especially same-sex “families”. Yet a typical homosexual response is to say these negative outcomes are simply due to “homophobia” in society.

Yet as O’Leary points out, even with widespread social acceptance of heterosexual divorce, the pain and negative outcomes for children has not lessened. So why should we assume that “even in a totally accepting society, permanently and purposefully fatherless and motherless children [in same-sex households] will simply ‘adjust’?”

The risks to children raised in same-sex households are many. They are of course put in a situation – deliberately – where they will be deprived of either a biological mother or biological father. The research on the risks of such a situation is by now simply overwhelming and irrefutable.

Children will also be in the care of two adults who still are suffering from gender identity confusion, which is what homosexuality is really all about. People who are same-sex attracted suffer from more emotional, psychological and developmental problems than do heterosexuals, as the research so clearly demonstrates, and it is in that less than ideal environment the children must be raised.

Children are also at greater risk of sexual abuse if raised in any other family structure than the two-parent biological family. The very recent case in the UK of homosexual foster parents who sexually abused children in their care is just one of many examples here.

Family structure does matter, in other words, and children should not be the guinea pigs of radical social experimentation. The commodification of children is simply magnified in alternative lifestyle households.

O’Leary also spends a large portion of this book looking at the same-sex marriage debate, and the enormous negative consequences which follow from the legal recognition of homosexual marriage. Many problems arise. As just one example, when we legalise same-sex marriage, we open a door which no one can easily shut. The slippery slope sets in big time, in other words.

The growing acceptance of the polyamory movement is just one case in point. “After all, if same-sex couples have rights, why not those whose preferred family form involves three or more partners?” Indeed, as O’Leary argues, the case for polyamory may in fact be stronger than the case for same-sex marriage:

“In contrast to same-sex marriage, there is historical and cultural precedent for it.” Moreover, unlike “same-sex marriage, polygamy provides a father and a mother (and then some) for children”.

O’Leary concludes by offering a 12-point strategy for taking on the Sexual Left in general and the same-sex marriage advocates in particular. These include: telling the truth about homosexuality; codifying into law the true nature of heterosexual marriage; informing people of the harm children especially experience because of the agenda of the Sexual Left; and living well our own marriages.

The battle over marriage is far from over, and it is unclear which side will prevail. But for those concerned about protecting marriage and family, this book is an important part of our arsenal, and deserves careful reading.

[799 words]

5 Replies to “A review of One Man, One Woman. By Dale O’Leary.”

  1. The Sexual Orientation Regulations (at present limited to lesbians, gays, transsexuals and bisexuals – though there is no logical reason why this should not be applied to incestuous and all other erotic orientations; indeed it is already in the pip line), in the opinion of many, is the evolutionary humanist’s Trojan horse for destroying Christianity. What better way to demoralise and destroy people than through their bodies, where matter, mind and spirit are inextricably mixed. Ray Robinson’s comment in More Madness, More Messed Up Children, said “Our expectations for political and societal leadership from the church elders is seriously misplaced. They are not trained or equipped for such a role and we err by expecting them to do so.” I could not agree more. As I have painfully discovered, it is not the general public that attempts to silence the watchmen on the wall (Ezekiel 33) but the church. Confused by the need to be loving towards those who at best, through no real fault of their own, but at worst, through deliberate sin, have a fundamentally serious disability, church elders silence those who try to warn families of the emotional, psychological, spiritual and social dangers of sex outside heterosexual, monogamous and enduring marriage. Those of us who bang on about this subject are accused of being obsessive, but as Lisa Nolland has said of Anglican Mainstream, (read Lisa’s Lookout) if we loose this battle we loose all else.

    Martin Luther famously said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I maybe professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefields besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”

    David Skinner, UK

  2. Please indulge me again. This is from a doughty, warrior, (and may God raise up such women) Diane Mullaly (UK) who wrote: “I am a committed Christian aged 63 and so very grieved that a minority in this country could push things so far that the majority of us could be forced into tolerating their views in our churches, schools, businesses and homes or risk prosecution. I for one will not accept that my church will be unable to refuse to marry same-sex couples or hire out halls for gay parties/events or even to accept gay couples into a Christian bed and breakfast. In all these issues including the adoption one – I will gladly go to prison, but I will not have these things forced upon me or my family. … I want the right to choose what I teach my children and grandchildren – not have it forced upon me that I must teach them about ‘another kind of love’ as they put it in a leaflet being prepared – I will not teach my grandchildren this, nor stand by and agree to someone else doing so, and I sincerely hope that there are many, many women like me who feel the same in this country. If this law is passed in this country my freedom to choose will have been taken away.”
    David Skinner, UK

  3. Thank you, Mr. Muehlenberg, for posting your review of Dale O’Leary’s book, One Man, One Woman. The book is clearly the culmination of objective research, persistence in the pursuit of truth, and Christian charity at its best.

    Please help the rest of the world – yes, particularly Christians who seek to live by the fullness of Love – to act in accordance with the truth, and not be taken in by a misguided desire to accept what they think they cannot change. You can make a difference!

    Pauline A. Nadeau, Miami, Florida, USA

  4. As I understand your views, you think that other people’s potential marriages threatens your marriage?
    Daniel Thompson

  5. Thanks Daniel

    But sadly you do not understand my views. My argument (or that of O’Leary) is not that my particular marriage will necessarily be directly impacted by same-sex marriage. Our argument is that the institution of marriage as a whole which has been around for millennia will be severely damaged when it is redefined out of existence by including any and every type of union.

    And given that one of the great social goods of heterosexual marriage is the way it protects and helps in the raising of the next generation, then children will also suffer when we allow the social engineers to fundamentally alter the institutions of marriage and family.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: