Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott in Christianity Today, Feb. ’04 picked apart arguments for gay marriage, including that it does no harm to society, calling it “a superficial kind of individualism that does not recognize the power of emerging social trends that often start with only a few individuals bucking conventional patterns of behavior.”
Gay marriage is defended as not harming marriage in the short run. The authors recall the ’60s, “when illegitimacy and cohabitation were relatively rare” and “we were asked, whom do these individuals hurt?”
Now we know the negative social effects these two living arrangements have spawned: lower marriage rates, more instability in the marriages that are enacted, more fatherless children, increased rates of domestic violence and poverty, and a vast expansion of welfare state expenses.
That said, the authors cite three reasons why “the institutionalization of gay marriage” would be bad for marriage, children, and society.
The first is that it would change “the definition of marriage.” Such a “scrambling” would be “shock to our fundamental understanding of human social relations and institutions.”
Gays are less faithful, for one thing. “There is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman,” wrote gay marriage proponent Andrew Sullivan in his 1996 book, Virtually Normal, approvingly. “Something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, flexibility, and equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds,” he added.
Or, as Metropolitan (gay) Church founder Troy Perry told The Dallas Morning News, “Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses.” For them fidelity calls for “a loving, caring, honest relationship,” in which honesty matters most. “Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there’s no deception.”
Even (legally) “married” gays in Netherland have an average of eight partners per year outside their relationship, according to a study made shortly before this article appeared. “Gay marriage will change marriage more than it will change gays,” commented the authors.
“Further,” they add, gay marriage will provide a wedge for societal acceptance of marriage among more than two partners, or such is the goal of some proponents.
Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and “polyamory” (group marriage) “morally neutral.” She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality.
And
University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be “more receptive to [marital] units of three or more.”
More to come, including sharp rejoinders from opponents to the authors’ position.
Blithe Spirit 