Should Gay Marriage be Legal Nationwide? >
Same-Sex 'Marriage' Would Lead to a Push for Polygamy
Only the traditional union of a man and a woman truly serves society
October 7, 2011
About Peter Sprigg:
Peter Sprigg is senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council in Washington. He is the author of the book Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage and he was co-editor of the FRC book Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality.
Marriage is a public institution (not purely a private relationship) because it serves two public purposes: bringing together men and women for the reproduction of the human race, and keeping together a man and woman to raise to maturity the children produced by their union.
The existence of future generations of children is fundamental to the survival of any society. The quality of their nurture is directly related to the quality of life within that society. Bonding the man and woman whose sexual union produces a child to one another and to that child is by far the healthiest way of insuring that nurture.
Opposite-sex relationships are the only type capable of producing children through natural intercourse, and the only ones assured of providing children with both a mother and a father. Affirming only opposite-sex relationships as "marriage" thus makes perfect sense.
[See a collection of political cartoons on gay marriage.]
The common sense understanding that children should have both a mother and a father is now supported by reams of social science data. The research leaves no doubt that children raised by their own biological mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier, and more prosperous than children in any other living situation.
Changing the natural definition of marriage would amount to a declaration that procreation is unimportant, and that children do not need a mother or father. This would inevitably lead to a further deconstruction of marriage and the family—and fewer children being raised by a married mother and father—at a time when those institutions should be strengthened instead.
[Vote now: Should gay marriage be legal nationwide?]
Where marriage has been redefined, we have already seen the forced subsidization of homosexual relationships, infringements on religious liberty, and aggressive pro-homosexual propaganda in the schools.
Research also shows that homosexuals are less likely to enter into long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful to a partner, and less likely to see their relationships last a lifetime. Incorporating this behavior into society’s concept of "marriage" would lead to a decline in commitment, fidelity, and permanence for marriages across the board.
It is no more "discrimination" to bar marriage to a person of the same sex than it is to bar marriage to a person who is already married, a close blood relative, or a child. If same-sex "marriage" is legalized, we can be certain that a push for polygamy will not be far behind.
- See a collection of political cartoons on gay marriage.
- Vote now: Should gay marriage be legal nationwide?
- Read: Both Sides See Same-Sex Marriage as Winning Issue in 2012.
- Other Arguments
-
#150154
Yes — Defense of Marriage Act divides married Americans into two classes
EVAN WOLFSON, Founder and President of Freedom to Marry
-
#243556
Yes — Ending marriage discrimination will help build stronger families, stronger communities, and a stronger America
REA CAREY, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
-
#328029
Yes — Centralized power, constitutional interpretation could give justices right to rule
ROBERT F. NAGEL, Professor at Colorado Law School
-
#542411
No — If Congress legalizes gay marriage, it will do so at the cost of traditional marriage
BRIAN BROWN, President of the National Organization for Marriage
Reader Comments Read all comments (23)
Joe of OH 10:39PM May 07, 2012
Maxx Oakley of FL 9:34PM November 07, 2011
Brian of OH 5:17PM November 01, 2011