Questions To Ask Advocates Of Homosexual Marriage (Part 3)

(Part 1 of this series can be found here. Part 2 is here.)

Since all heterosexual marriages promote unity between the sexes in a way that's beneficial to society, don't we have reason to give all heterosexual marriages preferential treatment (including couples who are infertile, for example)? Notice that it's not just a matter of the unity of individuals, but also unity of the sexes. Homosexual marriage could be said to promote the unity of individuals, but heterosexual marriage has the added benefit of promoting unity between the sexes. The differences between the sexes and the complementarity involved in their union are of significant interest to a society. Even if somebody were to argue that homosexual marriage benefits society in other ways, the fact would remain that the benefits coming from the two relationships are different. Heterosexual marriage already exists, has existed for thousands of years, and involves a far larger number of people. Thus, if either relationship should be expected to accommodate the other, it ought to be homosexuality accommodating heterosexuality. The heterosexual relationship has traditionally been identified as marriage. Don't categorize the homosexual relationship in the same manner. Call it something else, and treat it differently. It is different.

Since heterosexual marriage has been so beneficial to society, whereas we don't have comparable evidence regarding homosexual marriage, why not wait for more research to be done before expanding homosexual marriage into more states and more nations? Regarding the research done so far, see Dan McLaughlin's article here. I wouldn't limit the investigation to the sort of secular concerns that are typically included in social science research. The religious dimension of marriage and related issues, such as raising children, can't be ignored. But even if we were to limit ourselves to more secular issues for the sake of argument, doesn't it make sense to be cautious at this point, since the study of homosexual marriage is only in its early stages?

Since studies have shown some significant disadvantages to homosexual relationships, in comparison to heterosexual relationships, shouldn't we not only be cautious about homosexual marriage, but even be skeptical of it? Again, see Dan McLaughlin's article. Some of the issues involved haven't been studied much yet, but there have been negative results for homosexuality in some of the areas studied so far.

Do you have an informed position on every implication of every belief you hold related to homosexual marriage? Advocates of homosexual marriage often ask their opponents about everything from the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic law to the Biblical position on the death penalty to what we believe about issues like immigration policy as it relates to homosexuals and whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. For example, see Doug Wilson's recent debate with Andrew Sullivan, in which Wilson was expected to address a wide variety of such issues. Marriage is a large subject with many implications in many areas of life. Nobody's going to be able to intelligently address every issue that comes up in the context of homosexual marriage. Even if you don't know what position to take on some aspects of the Mosaic law other than the prohibitions of homosexuality, don't know what position to take on homosexual adoption, etc., you can have adequate grounds for opposing homosexual marriage. Similarly, advocates of homosexual marriage are ignorant of a lot of the issues involved, yet they think they know enough to take a position on the subject of whether the state should recognize homosexual marriage.