CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Dealing With Objections From Homosexual Marriage Advocates

Aug 28, 2017

Those seeking to redefine the institution of marriage are willing to say anything and do anything to bring it about, and quite often they rely heavily on outright falsehoods, deception and misinformation as they seek to “argue” their case. They will throw any and every objection your way, no matter how weak, how bogus, or how ludicrous.

This is typical “debating” style of the activists: keep throwing up one charge, accusation and objection after another, over and over again, and simply seek to wear down the other side. There are even logical fallacies about such tactics, including the argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum (argument from repetition).

Here are five related objections constantly being offered by the pro-homosexual marriage, or simply by those genuinely wondering about such things. I have answered all these claims countless times, but it seems I must continue doing so. Here then are more responses to objections raised by the pro-homosexual marriage camp, all centring on the issue of children.

Objection one

The first and most common objection they will throw our way is to try to claim that marriage has nothing to do with children. Wrong: the institution of marriage never would have come into existence if it were not for children. Societies take a great interest in marriage because they take a great interest in children – the next generation.

This is so patently false that I already have dealt with it in a full-length article, so I direct your attention to it for much more detail: billmuehlenberg.com/2017/08/25/yes-marriage-really-children/

Objection two

Related to this is the claim that if a married couple has no children, we are saying they are not really married. Nope – no one is saying childless couples who are married (either through choice or because of infertility) are not in a real marriage.

This again misses the point. The institution of marriage came into being because children – generally speaking – are the product of the male-female union. Sex between a man and a woman is designed to bring a child into existence. It may also be pleasurable, but it is the basic purpose of the sex act.

That is how nature has so designed things. If a couple does not have children, that does not negate this basic purpose. Just as a book does not cease to be a book if it remains unread on a shelf, marriage does not cease to be marriage if a minority of couples cannot have children or do not want to have children.

When we raise the importance of the wellbeing of children, we are not saying no to homosexual marriage just because they cannot naturally have children. With the new Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) they now can. But – and this is a very important but – all children in homosexual households are obviously missing out on a biological mother or father.

That is what children need most. They are deliberately being denied that in homosexual households. That is a form of child neglect, if not child abuse. And this leads me to the next objection.

Objection three

It is frequently claimed that family structure does not matter, and that children do just fine in any type of household. These folks claim that children in homosexual households do just as well as those in married heterosexual households. Wrong again: we now have well over a half century of social science research telling us this is demonstrably untrue.

What the research shows over and over again is quite clear: on the whole, and in most cases, children do best when raised in homes with their biological mother and father, preferably cemented by marriage. The research data on this is overwhelming.

Whether we look at educational outcomes, criminal involvement, drug usage, suicide rates, or other measurable social outcomes, children do best with a mum and a dad who are married. This family structure does far better than any other kind, be it a single-family household, a blended family, a step-family, cohabitation, a homosexual household, and so on.

While there may be exceptions to this, exceptions do not make the rule. Sure, we can all find some cases of lousy heterosexual parenting, but that does not diminish the results of the research. For the great majority of children, they have the best outcomes in the married, heterosexual two-parent home.

See this two-part article for just a small sampling of the tremendous amount of social science material we now have on this:

www.nationalobserver.net/2002_autumn_108.htm
www.nationalobserver.net/2002_winter_110.htm

And then we have the growing collection of stories of those who were raised in homosexual households telling us how they feel about this – how they missed out and were hard done by. Plenty of these stories can be mentioned. See here for more on this: billmuehlenberg.com/2015/02/03/homosexual-marriage-listen-to-the-children/

Next month Katy Faust from the US will be in Sydney. She is another one who was raised in such a household. She knows full well about all the negatives to this. She very much wishes she had had her own mother and father. I have shared her story here: billmuehlenberg.com/2015/08/13/speaking-truth-on-homosexual-marriage-and-parenting/

Objection four

Yet we still hear that homosexuals should have marriage. They say that marriage is good for people, and good for children, so we should have homosexual marriage. This is another case of twisting the data and telling porkies for an ideology.

Is marriage good for people and good for children? Absolutely, and again we have a wealth of social science data on this. People do better by all measures when married, and so do their children. See here for a brief overview of some of the research on this: billmuehlenberg.com/2000/12/19/a-review-of-the-case-for-marriage-by-linda-waite-and-maggie-gallagher/

But – and once again this but is crucial – it is NOT any old kind of “marriage” which is so good for people and children. It certainly is NOT the fake “marriage” of two men or two women which provides the best outcomes for people and for children.

It is HETEROSEXUAL marriage which is so beneficial to adults and which gives children the very thing they need most to succeed and thrive: their very own biological mother and father. That is what real marriage does: it seals a husband and wife together, and it seals mother and father together with any children so conceived.

Objection five

Some will claim that even though homosexuals cannot naturally have children, they can use various forms of ART, just as some heterosexual couples do. I can offer two responses here. First, plenty of us have very real concerns indeed about ART.

My next bioethics book will be all about IVF and surrogacy and the many shortcomings and problems thereof. So just because some heterosexuals make use of the various means of ART does not mean we all think it is acceptable. These things are incredibly problematic. See here for starters: billmuehlenberg.com/2007/08/30/concerns-about-ivf/

But much more importantly, the fundamental and crucial difference is this. Heterosexuals do NOT normally need ART, given that they (or at least the great majority) can naturally have children just by virtue of being heterosexual. They need no assistance along the way, because a man and woman together are clearly designed to be able to have children.

In a minority of cases (perhaps 10-15 per cent max) some couples are infertile for various reasons, and so some will resort to ART. We call this biological or physical infertility. They ordinarily are able to have children, but something is amiss, so extraordinary means are sought.

Not so with homosexual couples however. By definition and by reality, they CANNOT naturally have children. They can NEVER have children, except by things like ART. So theirs is a “social infertility”. It is brought about by seeking to do what nature never intended. Human beings are not amoebas and do not reproduce asexually. We are made male and female, and only male and female together can naturally produce children.

Any plumber or electrician can tell you this. For example, only a male electrical plug works with a female one. Two male or two female ends will never get the current flowing. It is that simple and that basic. Men and women in a complementary union are designed to have children, while two men or two women are not and cannot.

There are plenty more such objections raised by the activists, or by those with legitimate questions on all this. Future articles in this series will address them. In the meantime, I have hundreds of articles on this site which have already dealt with these sorts of objections and criticisms.

And of course my two books on the matter, Strained Relations, and Dangerous Relations deal with all this in great amounts of detail. They contain some 1,200 footnotes for those who want everything carefully referenced and documented.

[1454 words]

16 Responses to Dealing With Objections From Homosexual Marriage Advocates

  • Hey Bill,

    The other day I heard a bloke at a catholic church say: “lets pray for wisdom in voting for this plebiscite” which in essence seemed fairly logical to me.”
    Then he went on with: “Its about equal rights.”

    Can you believe that? Well! One could have knocked me over with a feather. Imagine any God fearing man or any Church goer anywhere, thinking that? 
    Wow! Imagine thinking; that by the recognition and consumation of the un-natural act of sodomy ( a grave sin) could possibly receive Gods blessing in the form of and under a veil of Marriage?
    Astounding!

  • Thanks TnR. Yes there are a lot of clueless and worldly folks in many of our churches.

  • LGBTIQ. What is the ‘B’ position in SSM?

  • Thanks John. I suppose Bs will want one of each.

  • Well Bill, there is another fact that never get a mention in regard to marriage
    The contraceptive pill destroyed the true meaning of marriage years ago, and that is the reason why we now live an immoral world.
    So if the gay lobby get the right to marry, we all have lost the right to free speech etc.
    That is what has happened in other countries and the same will happen here.

  • Dear Bill, thank you and God Bless. This is very helpful so we have our counter arguments ready.

    Someone said to me on the weekend that the conflict this is causing even within our churches might actually be a good thing. He said like how fasting purges the body of bad elements, so this process will allow us to identify those who are not truly biblically centred.

    You probably saw Nick Greiner’s opinion piece in The Australian. If Mr Greiner was a practicing Catholic, I was taught he may face excommunication for his open defiance of Catholic teaching. Should we evangelicals adopt a similar approach with the fake marriage sympathising “Christians In Name Only” in our church congregations?

  • The remarks in your article, Bill put me in mind of the argument against divorce in Malachi 2:13-16, where “seeking a godly offspring” is a core part of the marriage “equation”.

  • Dear Bill,
    Thank you for the article. My husband said he heard on the TV that 80% of Catholics agree with SSM. That percentage might be a bit high because the MSM would love to think that but I can believe that many Catholics would agree with it especially the lapsed Catholics. This is because most priests wouldn’t have the courage to speak against it. Few had the courage to speak out against abortion either. We are very fortunate because our priest has given a homily on it and said clearly the yes vote is going against God. I would like to remind Catholics that Sodomy flies in the face of Almighty God and is one of the four sins crying up to Heaven for vengeance. The others are voluntary murder, defrauding the labourer of his wages and taking advantage of the poor. Therefore Catholics, lapsed or otherwise, be very careful how you vote

  • Herein lies the incongruity of the argument. The gay lobby asserts it is nothing more than the human right to get married to the person of your choice. The upholder of marriage states there is more than meets the eye, which the LGBT proponents shun. This is why the debate gets nowhere. We have the relay the truth even before it manifests because the covert intentions of the campaign need exposure.

  • Dear Mel, but how do we get back to the true meaning of marriage when use of the contraceptive pill is so widespread even among evangelical Christians?

    In our church for instance, a very conservative church I might add, our young folk are getting married and then deliberately delaying having children because they “are not ready”. They are ready for sex, to indulge their carnal desires, but they don’t want the natural consequence per God’s design — children — just yet, so they use the contraceptive pill to defy God’s Will.

  • We definitely need our priests preaching God’s will and the church’s teaching on this issues. It’s very concerning that the church is not being more outspoken about the matter.
    We need to pray for them- strength, wisdom and courage to speak truth.

  • Dear Patricia, while there are obvious differences between Christians and Catholics I am very happy to hear of your priest’s clear “homily” against sodomite marriage, and that for Catholics sodomy is a “sin crying up to Heaven for vengeance”.

    I wish our churches could be as convicted in their opposition to sodomy, especially when practiced in Christian marriages, defiling the pure marital bed.

    We had preacher from the USA a few years ago who was very popular in evangelical church congregations — his name is Mark Driscoll. He wrote a book promoting “anal sex” as perfectly normal and even Godly when practiced within a Christian marriage.

    My wife and I were horrified when we heard that this man was coming to Australia and offering to “mentor” our church leaders in his wicked ways, including some connected to our church. Pastor Steve Chong of RICE was hand picked by Pastor Driscoll for mentoring as is recorded below, but curiously while this has a link to the church announcement of the mentoring, the linked page was deleted after Driscoll’s sodomy loving ways and other sins were revealed.

    xnreflections.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/steve-chong.html

  • I grew up without my natural father – my mother is straight, so was my step father. It can cause problems in terms of identity. You lose half your history.

  • Fyi – more on Greiner:-

    www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/nick-greiner-confirms-the-left-runs-the-liberals-and-conservatives-are-not-welcome/news-story/54bd5e301518dded60a8215c54859479

    In Comments section Amanda-Sue Markham wrote:-

    If this isn’t a battle for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, I don’t know what is! I am a conservative Liberal, even a recent candidate. Mr Greiner is my Federal president and he is clearly unaware my husband, a Pastor, is being taken to the anti-discrimination commission for blogging about traditional marriage. Apparently, it is now offensive. If Nick Greiner is able to dismiss the No-case for freedom of speech, can he also dismiss our legal costs? Could run into the hundreds of thousands, we’re told. We are the first of many if this becomes law.

  • The other battleground Bill that does my head in (especially on the dreaded Facebook) is Christians who fall back on opaque arguments about exegesis/heumenetics when it comes to this subject.

    Trouble is they’re not saying anything but the fact they’re aware of these theological schools of thought. Any relevant biblical text quoting is met with a quasi-esoteric wall of meaninglessness which just trails off to nowhere, as if to indicate anyone of the counter view is just some kind of Christian pleb.

  • It seems to me that the extraordinary anger being directed at the concept of marriage and family as accepted by so many cultures and religions for so long, arises out of a self-centered world view. If an issue affects (or does not effect) me I will rail against/ignore the issue. The idea that there is a greater good that we would be wise to humble ourselves before and submit to (as taught by Jesus) seems to be lost on many today, even those in the church.

Leave a Reply