Is Same Sex Marriage Morally Good for Society?

Throughout civilization, the ethical model of marriage has been lived out by the Christian worldview. Christianity states that the sacredness of marriage is only to be shared between a man and a woman. It is this union between a man and a woman that has always been considered normal and the healthiest model for all civilizations. Secular humanism, on the other hand, vigorously opposes the ethical values of traditional marriage, and instead, endorses the “new ethics” of same-sex marriage. The worldview of secular humanism is supported and articulated on three major levels. First, homosexuality is a legitimate and normal lifestyle on account that people are born gay. Second, it is an injustice to discriminate homosexuality on the falsification that they are a threat to society. And third, they believe that homosexuality will enhance human development and social progress in marriage.[1] Yet despite the secular claims, the marriage model of the Christian worldview far outweighs the credibility of same-sex marriage. It will be demonstrated that traditional marriage is the only morally good agent to sustain and enrich family life, while exposing why same-sex marriage would be morally threatening to the protection and vitality of the world.

Secular humanists often refer to the study done by Alfred Kinsey as scientific evidence to support homosexuals born gay. Another powerful supporter of secular humanism is the American Psychological Association, which boasts a membership of 148,000 worldwide. They confidently endorse the notion that homosexuals are born gay. They testify that “recent evidence suggests that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.” They go on to claim that one’s own sexual orientation is not a choice. They write, “human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight; psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”[2]

Additionally, the secular humanist attempts to diminish the Christian model of marriage by declaring that Christianity is an intolerant religious worldview that inserts their own biased definition of marriage on everyone else. By doing this, secular humanists insist that Christians are ignoring the natural rights of a homosexual by enforcing their own values through the restrictions and guidelines of traditional marriage. Faith In Action (a secular humanistic organization) agree that Christian fundamentalists “confuse their bigotry with religious truth because their religion conveniently hides their fear and prejudice.”[3] That is to say, secular humanists affirm that if two adult homosexuals are committed to one another in love, they should not be restricted from marrying one another. Therefore, they avow that homosexuals ought to be given the right to marry their partner, and prevent Christians from denying them of this essential human right.

The Religious Declaration for the Freedom of Same Sex Couples to Marry (est., 1997) holds the belief that it is legally wrong to deny human rights to the minority group of homosexuals. Reform Rabbi Devon Lerner, from the Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion, voices her extreme outrage about gay partners being mistreated and discriminated because they are not being given the same equal rights as married couples. She states, “Such a denial of civil rights to a minority of our population is not only an offense to the human dignity of the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) community but it is also a blatant denial of their constitutional right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”[4] The report continues on to clarify that the call for “equal civil marriage rights” for same sex couples is a matter of human rights and not religious discrimination.

The final argument from secular humanism is the improvement of marital and family development provided by same-sex marriage. In point of fact, David Noebel summarizes their reasoning in these words, “The concepts of biological and cultural evolution dictate that the traditional concepts of marriage and family have outlived their usefulness. As the human species and culture progress, old traditions become outdated and must be replaced by new concepts that will continue the evolutionary process.[5] In essence, secular humanism is of the belief that if homosexuals were allowed to marry, they would provide more families with better stability and security.

Secular humanism unanimously agrees that studies now indicate that there is not a single difference in the developmental areas such as: intelligence, psychological, social, and popularity among classmates from children who are raised by homosexual parents.[6] They believe homosexuals should be given the human right to practice their sexuality openly by marrying whom they choose, raising children together, either through foster care, adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothering, as well as being equally accepted and viewed like everyone else.

In defense of traditional marriage according to Christianity, it is necessary to recognize and expose that same-sex marriage would be morally wrong for civilization. The schema to destroy traditional marriage by secular humanism is by no means private knowledge, but nonetheless, traditional marriage has always been and will always be the absolute moral standard for all civilizations.

First, the secular humanist is wrong in stating that a homosexual is born with a “gay gene.” There is no undisputed scientific evidence to support that someone is born gay. Norman Geisler says rightly, “Even if there were an inherited tendency toward a homosexual attitude, this would not justify homosexual acts. Some people seem to inherit a tendency toward violence, but this does not justify violent acts. Some people are said to have an inherited tendency toward alcohol abuse, but this does not justify drunkenness.”[7] In effect, if someone was born a homosexual, it by no means makes it normal or morally right to marry someone of the same sex.

Second, there is no discrimination in claiming that a homosexual does not have the right to marry. In fact, that person who chooses to be homosexual does have the same privileges and benefits of state sanctioned matrimony as anyone else. The only problem is they just cannot marry a person of the same sex. The reason is simple: It is the government (not Christianity) that does not acknowledge same-sex marriage as a legal form of marriage. There are standards by which the state issues marriage licenses and is regulated on account of them meeting the fundamental standards that our society has deemed suitable. Legalizing same-sex marriages is not about human rights, it’s about validation! It’s about homosexuals wanting to gain the social and political respect from all society. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council deals with this issue as follows:

Gay Citizens already have the same right to marry as anyone else-subject to the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However, much of these restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the
nature of marriage itself.[8]

Secular humanism needs to understand the fact that marriage has always been the basic foundation of humanity; families exist because marriage has always guaranteed the procreation between a male and female.[9] As such, marriage becomes purposeful in producing, protecting and providing for their children. David Noebel writes, “The family is ordained by God (Genesis 2:23-25) and is a fundamental social institution. The Bible strictly defines the family and its role in society. James Dobson and Gary Bauer say that a family exists when “husband and wife are lawfully married, are committed to each other for life, and [the family] adheres to the traditional values on which the family is based.”[10]

Within these shared relationships and responsibilities, males express their masculinity, while females express their femininity. There is a natural complement between the husband and the wife. As Greg Koukl puts it, “marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole.”[11] To put it another way, “Marriage is at the basis of continuing our civilization.” Furthermore, Noebel affirms from the perspective of any sociologists who, “believe that the condition of marriage and family in any given society describes the condition of the entire society. If the family is troubled, then society is troubled. Encouraging and building up the God-ordained institution of marriage and family is, therefore, advantageous to society.”[12] Unfortunately for the homosexual couple, they cannot match this natural teleology, and until then, it is not legally or morally permissible to redefine marriage for the sole purpose of promoting their sexual predilections.

The real issue is that through the lifestyle of homosexuality, secular humanism wants people to believe that their rights are being infringed upon, when in reality, they are infringing upon the rights of those who oppose them. Noebel points out there worldview propaganda with these sentiments, “The many forces working against marriage and family are primarily a result of the Secular Humanist-inspired sexual revolution. For example, children in public schools are taught that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle.”[13] Hence, when secular humanists complain that homosexuals are being treated as an “oppressed minority” that is simply false. This new rendition of marriage, assumed by secular humanism, is countered by Time magazine in this stunning response: “It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval…It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.”[14]

Lastly, given the fact that same-sex marriage has no logical leg to stand on; neither to does same-sex marriage possess any real moral improvement for society. Tim Leslie says it well, “If the central purpose of government is to promote the general welfare, then the state must promote always what is best for society’s health, security, and long term viability.”[15] If the government were to legalize homosexual marriage, it would be more than allowing than just two people of the same-sex getting married. It would be adopting a worldview lifestyle that would corrupt the every fabric of moral living in our society. It has already been noted that the homosexual agenda is not only to redefine traditional marriage, but through their ideology reconstruct a social matrimony full of corruption.

This corruption contains significant problems. Research has continually confirmed that same-sex marriages will be a major detriment to the fragment of civilization. Listed below is a concise yet thorough statistical examination of the moral decay of homosexuality. The implication of these facts demonstrates, plainly and objectively, that homosexuality would morally destroy the bedrock of our entire civilization.
(1) Promiscuity. In Dr. Thomas Schmidt’s book Straight and Narrow?, his research showed that over seventy-five percent of homosexual men have over 100 sexual partners in their lifetime.[16] In Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg’s book Homosexualities, they discovered that twenty-eight percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 partners, and over seventy-nine percent admitted that more than half of their sexual encounters were with total strangers.[17]
(2) Sexual Practices. Dr. Klamecki did an exhaustive study on the sexual practices of homosexuals. His findings showed that the two main forms of sexual acts are anal intercourse (sodomy) and oral intercourse. He found that the majority of the external and internal parts of the body are affected by such sexual acts: penis, oral cavities, immune system, perianal areas outside of the rectum, vagina, uterus, brain, blood, etc. Sadomasochism is very common among homosexual couples as well. Dr. Klamecki comments, “Foreign objects are often used in order to produce a different erotic sensation…I have removed corn cobs, light bulbs, vibrators, soda bottles, and varied wooden sticks [from the rectum and lower bowel].”[18]
(3) Sexual Diseases. AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases run rampant among homosexuals. Seventy-five percent of homosexual men carry one or more sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, bacterial infections and syphilis). It is important to mention that this does not including AIDS. In addition, over sixty-five percent have viral infections like herpes and hepatitis B.[19]
(4) Life Expectancy. Compiling the data reported above and applying it to the death rate among homosexual men, the median is anywhere from 39 to 45 years of age. When compared to the average life expectancy of married heterosexual men, the difference in life expectancy is almost 35 years!
(5) Proselytizing Children. Linda Harvey reports that The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is attempting to infest our public school systems. Harvey states that the GLSEN find it healthy and beneficial for children to begin experimenting sexually at a young age. It is perfectly normal for children to “come out” and express their interest in the same sex. It is appropriate and even necessary for children to “meet” and “question” older homosexuals and learn about the normalcy of their lifestyle.[20]
(6) Mental Problems. Dr. William Lane Craig notes in his book that homosexuals are three times more likely to becoming alcoholics. This explains why over half of the Gay Community have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. According to Dr. Schmidt, forty percent of homosexual men struggle with depression, while thirty-seven percent of female homosexuals have a history of depression.[21]
(7) Family Deterioration. Homosexuals have no intent on becoming monogamous. Monogamy is not in their vocabulary, “open” fidelity is what they affirm. How then can gay couples nurture and raise children when their lifestyle engages in destructive behavior? For example, the Adolescence reports that children of homosexual parents are more likely to be molested than children in a heterosexual home.[22] Glenn T. Stanton writes in CitizenLink that children raised in homes with a mom and a dad, “do far better in every measure than children who grow up in any other family situation. Rarely is the social science literature as conclusive as it is on this point.”[23] Noebel notes that it is the mission of secular humanist sociologists is to provide alternatives to traditional child rearing. He quotes Lawrence Casler who suggests a society where “there would be no compulsory responsibility for child rearing.”[24]

It is clear that the so called “ethical” practices of same-sex marriages would have no real moral bearing or obligation on the protection and common welfare of civilization. The framework of marriage supported by Christianity, however, is obliged to prevent anything that can jeopardize the true sanctity of civilization. Simply put, if the ethics of same-sex marriages were institutionalized around the world, it would promote a destructive lifestyle that would: (1) weaken marriages, (2) threaten the survival of our families and society, (3) destroy the education in our schools, (4) increase the usage of drugs and alcohol, (5) raise the spread of AIDS and diseases, and (6) raise the number of molestations, rapes and pedophilia. It is obvious then, that traditional marriage is morally superior to same-sex marriage, and therefore, the secular worldview of marriage would be morally wrong for our society to embrace.




[1]David A. Noebel, Understanding The Times (Revised 2nd Edition; reprint, Colorado: Summit Press, 2006), 142.
[2]American Psychological Association, “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality,” 2004, APA Online, http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#goodparents (accessed July 29, 2007).
[3]“FIA's Mission Statement,” 2006, Faith in America Inc., http://www.faithinamerica.info/newSite/about.html (accessed July 26, 2007).
[4]Rabbi Devon Lerner, “Why We Support Same-sex Marriage,” 2006, New England School of Law, http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/VOL38/3/5-Lerner-PDF.pdf (accessed July 23, 2007).
[5]Noebel, Understanding The Times, 261.
[6]National Lesbian, and Gay Taskforce, “Reports and Research,” 2002, http://thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family (accessed August 5, 2007).
[7]Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1989), 266.
[8]Greg Koukl, “Same Sex Marriage: Challenges and Responses,” 2002, Stand to Reason, http://www.lifeway.com (accessed August 3, 2007).
[9]Sue Bohlin, “Same Sex Marriage: A Facade of Normalcy,” 2005, Probe Ministries, http://www.probe.org/faith-and-sexuality/homosexuality/same-sex-marriage-a-facade-of-normalcy.html (accessed August 2, 2007).
[10]Noebel, Understanding The Times, 250.
[11]Koukl, Same Sex Marriage: Challenges and Responses,” http://www.lifeway.com.
[12]Noebel, Understanding The Times, 250.
[13]Noebel, 250.
[14]Joseph P. Gudel, “Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction,” 1994, CRI, http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0107a.html (accessed August 3, 2007).
[15]Tim Leslie, “The Case Against Same Sex Marriage,” 2004, Crisis Magazine, http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2004/leslie.htm (accessed August 3, 2007).
[16]Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? (Downer's Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 108.
[17]Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 308.
[18]Bernard J. Klamecki, “Medical Perspective of the Homosexual Issue,” The Crisis of Homosexuality (1990): 115.
[19]William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2003), 141, 142.
[20]Kerby Anderson, “Gay Agenda in Schools,” 2007, http://www.probe.org/homosexuality/gay-agenda-in-schools.html (accessed July 13, 2007).
[21]William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers, 141.
[22]Leslie, The Case Against Same Sex Marriage,” http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2004/leslie.htm.
[23]Glenn Stanton, “Examining the Research of Homosexual Parenting,” CitizenLink, July 2006. [24]Noebel, Understanding The Times, 262.