Homosexuals understandably want their relationships to have equal social status with those of heterosexuals, and they see the law as their weapon to force that acceptance on the public. Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile believes that same-sex marriage is “a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us.” (Michelangelo Signorile)
Andrew Sullivan agrees. He writes, “If nothing else were done at all and gay marriage were legalized, 90 percent of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality will have been achieved.
It’s ultimately the only reform that matters.” (Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal)
Now we’ve reached the real reason homosexual activists are fighting so hard for government-backed same-sex marriage. Their relentless push for same-sex marriage isn’t really about civil rights—it’s about civil acceptance. Government-backed same-sex marriage is the one law that will normalize homosexual behavior everywhere else. Sullivan and Signorile are right about this. They recognize the power of the law to change behavior and attitudes over the long-run.
The law is a great teacher—many people think that whatever is legal is moral and, therefore, should be accepted. We only need to look at two of the most divisive issues in the history of our country—slavery and abortion—to see the power of the law to influence attitudes and behavior.
At the onset of the Civil War, our country was basically split on the issue of slavery, but today virtually everybody believes that slavery is morally wrong. What changed? We certainly haven’t become more religious or pious. No, what has changed is the law. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has helped teach each new generation that slavery is wrong.
Unfortunately, a change in the law can also lead new generations astray. When the Supreme Court issued its Roe vs. Wade opinion in 1973, most Americans thought abortion was wrong as evidenced by the laws in each of the fifty states which outlawed or restricted it. But today, the country is about evenly split. What happened? The law changed. In a situation that is the reverse of slavery, what was once considered immoral (and thus illegal) suddenly became a right created by the federal government. Legalization led to more social acceptance of abortion and a sixteen-fold increase in abortions nationwide. If same-sex marriage receives government backing, we will likely see an increase in homosexual behavior as well.
A third example of the law’s impact is divorce. Homosexual activists are right when they say that heterosexuals have degraded marriage through divorce. Given the negative impact of divorce on children and society, they are correct.
But the fact that heterosexuals have degraded marriage through divorce is not an argument for same-sex marriage. In fact, the recent history of the law and divorce actually argues against same-sex marriage. The vast social problems we are experiencing since the liberalization of divorce laws should help us realize just how important the law is to the health of the family and the country. When you pass laws that weaken the family, the entire nation gets sick. This should cause us to protect marriage, not weaken it further. When a patient has a disease, giving him another disease is not a prescription for wellness.
No-fault divorce laws began in one state, California, and then spread to rest of the country. Those liberalized divorce laws helped change our attitudes and behaviors about the permanence of marriage. There is no question that liberalized marriage laws will help change our attitudes and behaviors about the purpose of marriage. The law is a great teacher, and if same-sex marriage advocates have their way, children will be expelled from the lesson on marriage.
The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.
Same-sex marriage activists want to define marriage as simply a private relationship between two, loving, committed parties. They think it’s unfair that heterosexual relationships are recognized when their relationships are not. This is a misunderstanding of why the state is involved in marriage at all.
The state does not endorse natural marriage because two people “love” one another. It endorses man-woman unions because they benefit the public welfare in the numerous ways (children, health, reduced social costs, etc.). Besides, if marriage is merely a private affair, as same-sex advocates contend; then why do they want the government involved at all? They do not need the government to do what they want to do. In this country people who have homosexual desires can pledge fidelity to one another already—they don’t need state sanction to do so.
By their own admission, the main reason homosexuals want the government involved is to force acceptance of homosexuality on the public. I apologize for the repetition, but I cannot emphasize this enough. They want to change the law because they know that’s the way to change cultural attitudes about their behavior. In other words, state sanction will lead to social sanction. The approval of the law will lead to approval of homosexuality. Since many activists consider homosexual behavior their identity, any approval of homosexuality means approval of them as people. That’s what this is about. It’s not really about marriage but the validation marriage will bring them.
But government doesn’t exist to validate the desires of its citizens when such validation would harm others or society. This is why government does not validate most behavior; but particularly those that are destructive. Nearly everyone agrees that pedophilia is bad behavior and destructive. In fact, our society considers these so very destructive that we expect government to protect children from such harm. So contrary to the idea that government exists to validate the desires of its citizens— the main purpose of government is to protect its citizens from harm.
That’s why good laws endorse behaviors that are beneficial to the public welfare and restrain or at least do not incentivize behaviors that are destructive to it.
James Madison, the father of our Constitution, put it well. He wrote, “If men were angels no government would be necessary.” Since we’re not angels, government’s role is to discourage harm and encourage good. No society can long endure when its government reverses that duty.
Linked below are just a few articles, studies and publications that have now documented the negative effects on society, families and children of same-sex marriage in other countries. These studies also clearly document those unhealthy effects of the homosexual life style.
Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.
Studies clearly show natural marriage is beneficial while same-sex marriage to be destructive. If you are still not convinced, consider this: What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Hundreds of studies suggest it would result in a dramatic reduction in crime, welfare, abortion, and child abuse. On the other hand, what would be the effects on society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? It would be the end of society and the human race itself. While universal homosexuality, of course, would not occur, the two questions should help us realize that the two types of relationships can never be equated because they are not equally beneficial.
The Bottom-line is; gay and lesbian couples are free in this nation to live together and even pledge themselves to each other for the remainder of their lives. There are even churches and ministers that will perform marriage ceremonies for them. We have laws that protect them from being harassed, harmed and violated by any hate filled or bigoted people; and they should have those protections.
However, the preponderance of evidence; when taken in its totality - clearly shows homosexuality produces harm that should be avoided. That being said; the proper government role is not to ‘Validate’ certain lifestyles. The governments’ role is to stay out of individual lifestyle choices – and only become involved in order to protect citizens from harm.
Resources & Links
Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT Magazine, May 1996, pg. 30.
Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal, (USA, Vintage Books, 1996), pg. 185.
Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,” Weekly Standard, February 2, 2004,
Kurtz, “Slipping Toward Scandinavia.” Kurtz responds to his critics in, “Smoking Gun:
The Netherlands shows the effect of Same-sex Marriage,” in National Review Online, June 2,
2006. Available here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217803/smoking-gun/stanley-kurtz
Only 37 percent of people from countries with same-sex marriage think they should marry if they want children while 60 percent of people from countries without same-sex marriage think so. The same attitude holds true with regard to cohabitation: 83 percent think it’s acceptable in same-sex marriage countries, but only 49 percent think so elsewhere. See David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage, (New York, Encounter Books), 2007, pg. 233.
See the 2008 report titled “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing” at
Health Facts of Homosexual Activity
Even if we ignore the cultural issue of procreation or any arguments based on religious grounds, the evidence shows that homosexual unions are medically inferior to man-woman unions.
b. Shortens the life span of homosexuals, probably by eight to twenty years (see note 22 for data on homosexual life span studies, some of which are controversial).22 Smoking, on average, reduces life span by seven years. Since we discourage smoking, why are we thinking of endorsing homosexuality?
According to the Centers for Disease Control, gay and bisexual men account for the vast majority of syphilis cases (more than 60 percent in 2005). See also William Dunham, “Syphilis rise in U.S. gay, bisexual men causes worry,” Reuters, May 4, 2007.
Posted online at http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-05-04T170053Z_01_N04373052_RTRUKOC_0_US-SYPHILIS-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22.
22 John R. Diggs, Jr. M.D, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Resource Council, 2002. Available on-line at http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf.
R.S. Hogg, S.A. Strathdee, K.J. Craib, M.V. O’Shaughnessy, J.S. Montaner, and M.T. Schechter “Modeling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-661.
Available online at http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Books, 1996), 54, 69. For a recent study on HIV soaring among men having sex with teenage boys, see
More controversial studies have been conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron
Some researchers and many homosexual activists question the methodology of Dr. Cameron’s life span studies which found that the median age of death for male homosexuals is in the forties and lesbians in the fifties. A summary and discussion of Cameron’s research can be found in “Only the gay die young? An exchange between Warren Throckmorton, Morten.
c. Spreads disease to innocent people who never engage in homosexual sex. A prominent example is Ryan White, the teenage boy who died of AIDS after a blood transfusion. There are thousands of Ryan Whites—according to the CDC, there are nearly ten thousand known cases of innocent people in the United States who have contracted AIDS the same way, including 160 in 2005 and 131 in 2006 (this despite improvements in blood screening).23 Moreover, there are thousands of innocent heterosexuals (many are spouses) who have contracted STDs via sexual contact with bisexuals.
23 Center for Disease Control, Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2005 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Volume 17, Revised Edition, June 2007. See Table 17: Reported AIDS cases, by age category, transmission category, and sex, 2005 and cumulative— United States and dependent areas.
Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/table17.htm
for 2006 numbers.
Costs Americans millions in higher health insurance premiums because increased health costs from homosexual behavior are reflected in those premiums. In fact, the homosexual lobby has induced some states to prevent insurers from asking potential consumers any medical questions, including if they are HIV positive! As a result, every consumer is paying a higher premium because insurance companies are prevented from identifying clients who engage in high-risk sexual behavior.
The bottom line is that homosexual behavior is unhealthy. All sexual behaviors are not equally beneficial, and some of them can have negative public consequences. Innocent people can and do get hurt. Due to the devastating health effects of male homosexuality, most of the research into gay health issues has been concentrated on homosexual men. However, the research that has been conducted with respect to lesbians does not yield good news. Lesbians experience many more health problems than heterosexual women.
Even the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits the following about lesbian women:
Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk;
Factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.
They have higher risks for cervical cancers.
They are more likely to be obese.
They use more tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs.
A study of over 1,400 lesbians found the following:
Lesbians experience higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C.
They have more than twice the number of male partners than heterosexual women (only 7 percent who identify themselves as lesbians never have sex with men).
They are 4.5 times more likely to have fifty or more male sexual partners in a lifetime.
They are three to four times more likely to have sex with men who are at high risk for HIV— homosexuals, bisexuals, and IV drug users.
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, “Ten Things Lesbians Should Discuss With Their Health Care Provider,” http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=691
They are six times more likely to abuse drugs intravenously.25
Other studies also confirm lesbian health problems.26
Many homosexual activists get angry when you cite these health facts. But why would anyone get angry over facts?
As Augustine said, we love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us.
However, other homosexual activists acknowledge negative health effects and then use them as a reason to support their cause. This “conservative” case for same-sex marriage suggests that homosexual monogamy, encouraged by government-backed same-sex marriage, would alleviate these health problems. Andrew Sullivan writes, “A law institutionalizing gay marriage would merely reinforce a healthy social trend. It would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure.”27
Unfortunately, health problems and life span are not likely to improve significantly in so-called committed” homosexual relationships. Why not? There are at least four reasons. First, monogamy is not the main issue—homosexual behavior is. Homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy, not just multiple-partner homosexual acts. This is especially true of male homosexuality. Does anyone really believe that it is natural and healthy to insert the penis into the rectum—the organ whose sole purpose is to expel poisons from the body? The rectum is a one-way street. It’s a sewer. It was designed that way. Labeling its abuse as an act of “love” will not change that fact.
The standard homosexual response to this is, “It’s natural for me because I desire to do it.” I don’t mean “natural” in the sense of desire, but “natural” in the sense of design. Human beings have all kinds of “natural” desires to do things that are physically destructive (e.g. smoking, getting drunk, violence, etc.), and those things often feel good. But we don’t excuse those behaviors because they come “naturally.” The human body was not designed for anal intercourse. Such an act violates
For a summary of lesbian health problems, see John R. Diggs, Jr. M.D, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Resource Council, 2002, pgs. 5-6.
The natural design, and having a desire to engage in it does not change the fact that it is unnatural and physically destructive. Second, coupled homosexuals tend to practice more anal intercourse and more anal-oral sex than those without a steady partner. They also forego safer-sex practices because they are “in love.”28 In other words, coupled homosexuals tend to engage in more risky sexual contact than their single counterparts. So while married men improve their health and life span by being faithful to their wives, there is no comparable benefit in homosexual couples.
Third, if AIDS will not break promiscuity in homosexuals, it is unlikely government-backed marriage will. As AIDS is falling among heterosexuals, it is rising among homosexual men.
Finally, even if monogamy could reduce health problems, monogamy is the exception rather than the rule among homosexuals. The average number of sexual partners in a lifetime for a heterosexual is four, but for
a homosexual it is fifty. The vast Sex in America survey published by the University of Chicago found monogamy among heterosexuals to be 83 percent but less than 2 percent for homosexuals.30 Another survey had more moderate results, but still found infidelity in about 62 percent of gay couples. That led researchers in the Journal of Family Psychology to write, “The practice of sexual non-monogamy among some gay couples is one variable that differentiates gay and heterosexual couples.”
Why is monogamy much more common between men and women? Could it be because men and women are designed for one another and are therefore complementary? Think about it. One of the least-mentioned aspects of this debate is how men and women complement one another. Each sex balances and moderates the other by providing what’s lacking in the other.
David Dunlap, “In Age of AIDS, Love and Hope Can Lead to Risk,” New York Times, July 27, 1996.
Mike Stobbe, “CDC understated number of new HIV infections in US,” Reuters, August 2,2008.
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), The data from which Dr. Satinover draws these figures is the Sex in America survey published by researchers from the University of Chicago in 1994.
Quoted in Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., “Chris Matthews’ Hard Sell: Pay attention to the common Assumptions about Gay Marriage,” online at http://www.pfm.org/AM/Templatecfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=13210