AUSTRALIAN PRAYER NETWORK NEWSLETTER
by
Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Family Policy Studies at Family
Research Council.
As the battle to defend
traditional marriage hots up in Australia, as Christians we need to
have it very clear in our mind as to why we oppose changing the
definition of marriage to exclude same-sex marriage. This article
brings responds to the arguments put forward by those intent on
establishing "marriage equality" and why they are false. We
trust it will empower more Christians to take a stand in defence of
traditional marriage, particularly in writing to our parliamentary
representatives to put forward our views.
Advocates of redefining "marriage" to include same-sex
couples use a number of arguments that can best be described as
"myths." The reality is often quite different. For example:
MYTH: A "one man
and one woman" definition imposes a religious definition of
marriage on civil society.
REALITY: The definition
of marriage is rooted in nature itself. The sexual union of a man and
a woman is what reproduces the human race. The durable commitment of
that man and woman to one another is what provides children with a
mother and father. This is important for people of any religion or of
no religion.
MYTH: Children don't
actually need both a mother and a father.
REALITY: An
overwhelming body of social science evidence demonstrates that
children raised by their own mother and father, who are committed to
one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier and more
prosperous than children raised in any other household setting.
MYTH: Marriage can't be
about procreation, because infertile couples are allowed to marry.
REALITY: Laws are based
on the rule, not the exception. While not all heterosexual couples do
reproduce, it is indisputable that only heterosexual couples can do
so naturally. No homosexual couples can do so. That fact provides a
clear bright line for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
MYTH: Legalizing
homosexual "marriage" would have no effect on other
marriages and families.
REALITY: "The law
is a teacher," and if we change the definition of marriage we
will change what we teach about all marriages and families. For
example:
. We would
teach-wrongly-that procreation is no longer a uniquely important
public interest.
. We would
teach-wrongly-that children do not need a mother and a father.
. We would teach that
adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children,
should drive the definition of marriage.
MYTH: Defining marriage
as the union of one man and one woman is "discrimination."
REALITY: Every
individual has the same access to marriage, but no one has been
permitted to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is
already married, or (through most of human history) a person of the
same sex. Removing the last restriction would cast doubt on all the
others.
MYTH: Homosexual
relationships are the same as heterosexual ones.
REALITY: Research shows
that homosexuals are less likely to enter into long-term
partnerships, be sexually faithful, or have relationships last a
lifetime. Legal recognition of same-sex unions in Scandinavia has led
to a weakening of society's commitment to marriage across the board.
MYTH: Homosexuals
suffer serious harm because they're denied the "protections"
of marriage.
REALITY: Many of these
"protections" are already available to same-sex couples
through the use of private contractual arrangements, such as wills,
durable power of attorney, health care proxies, and life insurance
policies.
MYTH: Homosexuals are
unable to care for their own children if they cannot "marry."
REALITY: A biological
parent has the same rights whether the individual is heterosexual or
homosexual. States, if they choose to, can provide for homosexual
couples to adopt children without changing the definition of
marriage. However, recent research shows that children of homosexual
parents suffer significant disadvantages. It is not in children's
interest for society to actively affirm a family structure that may
harm them.
MYTH: Laws "banning
same-sex marriage" are the same as the old laws that banned
interracial marriage.
REALITY: It is actually
the supporters of homosexual "marriage" who resemble the
opponents of interracial marriage. Both groups sought to exploit the
marriage laws in pursuit of a social goal irrelevant to marriage.
Neither racial segregation (in the one case) nor the social
affirmation of homosexual conduct (in the other) was or is related to
the basic public purpose of marriage, which is promoting responsible
procreation and the rearing of children in the optimal family
setting.
MYTH: Legalizing
homosexual "marriage" would not affect anyone's religious
liberty or conscience rights.
REALITY: All
taxpayers, consumers and businesses would be forced to provide
allowances for homosexual relationships, whether they want to or not.
Schools would teach children that homosexual relationships are an
option fully equivalent to heterosexual ones, even in opposition to
parental teaching. Faith-based organizations and individuals would be
forced to compromise their beliefs, or be punished or driven from the
public square.
As Australian
Parliamentarians consider the arguments on whether people of the
same-sex should have the "right" to marry, they-and the
public-should be wary of falling for these myths.
