It Won’t Hurt Your Marriage

Redefining marriage won’t hurt yours will it, so what’s the big deal? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

How many of us have heard this one? What’s the big deal about letting homosexuals marry? It won’t hurt your marriage.

This sounds like a powerful objection, but it’s simply empty rhetoric.

For a start, most of us are encouraged to look for the good of others. It’s interesting that those who make such statements as this usually also tell us that we should seek the happiness of others and give them what they want. On the one hand then, I am encouraged to do this because it meets my own interests. In the other case, I am not to look for my own interests. Which is it?

Still, let’s look also at the way the argument is. There is a hidden premise.

That which will not hurt you is that which you should not worry about.
Homosexuals marrying will not hurt you.
Homosexuals marrying is that which you should not worry about.

But how would this work in other situations?

The kids of the neighbor are being abused by their father. Well that hurts them certainly, but it does not hurt me or my children. Therefore, I should not worry about it.

There is a high frequency of female rape in your community. Supposing you are not married and not even interested in marrying and have no female relatives nearby, then it affects no one that I know, therefore I should not be worried about it.

Our country is going to war. I know no one in the military and I know no one we are fighting against. Therefore, I should not worry about it.

In being good citizens of society, we all know that we should have an active concern in seeking the good of our society regardless of if it affects us directly or not. Even if I am not homeless, I should go and help those who are. Even if I am not going hungry, I should be willing to go and help those who are. (Interestingly, these were the same people who also complained that Christians were going to Chick-Fil-A instead of going to the soup kitchens. Would it have been fair to say “Starving people don’t affect me so why should I go?”)

In fact, in all of this we have not yet answered the question of if it hurts us. I contend that the answer is yes.

Let’s use divorce as an example. Let’s suppose we live in a society where people are profoundly aware of no-fault divorce. They are aware due to a high divorce rate in their area. Say that a couple gets married. The man has no intention of divorcing the wife. The woman has no intention of divorcing the husband. Both can repeat this to each other but when a hard time hits, both could be tempted to think “I will not divorce my spouse, but I wonder if I’m starting to wear on them.”

Even supposing that it is true that divorce never enters the mind of either, when they are asked by each other and answer “I would never think about it!” it could be easy to say “They’re just saying that.” This leads to the breakdown of trust. Never mind the effect that something like this will have on children who need to grow in an environment of stability.

We were told divorce would not really hurt kids. We were wrong.

Now this time we are to believe that not having a mother or not having a father as the default position will not hurt kids. A study like Regnerus’s has come along to help dispel this myth. I have no doubt that ten to twenty years down the line, even more research will come in to support this. If marriage as an institution is lowered, all instances of that institution will be lowered.

Yes. What happens does hurt my marriage but even if it did not, I believe it hurts society so I cannot be silent.

In Christ,
Nick Peters



21 Responses to “It Won’t Hurt Your Marriage”

  1. david Says:

    The examples of child abuse and rape are poor analogies since these involve violence by one person against another where marriage is consensual. The studies about the effects on children of being raised by same sex “parents” are interesting, but this only argues against same sex couples having children, not against them just being married. And it would be a difficult principle to base any legal construct on; at what point does a person’s less than perfect suitability as a parent become the basis of legal action? Do you legally prohibit smokers from having children because of potential harm from second hand smoke? Prohibit low income people from having kids because the children have less opportunity?

  2. pinkagendist Says:

    There are many more studies that were actually peer reviewed and published by very respected scientists that state beyond doubt that children with gay parents are as well adjusted as children of heterosexual parents:

  3. apologianick Says:

    @David. The analogy of abuse was to point out that you should not ignore something just because it won’t affect you.

    Also, the argument being made is that the unionization does change the idea that the family consists of a man and a woman and does change the notion that a mother and father is indispensable. It’s letting the nose of the camel into the tent.

    As for Pink, Regnerus’s study was aware of all of those studies that normally consisted of talking to the parents to get their opinion of how the children were doing instead of talking to the children themselves. Also, volunteers were used.

    Keep in mind, studies were used to show that No-fault divorce would not hurt children. We were wrong.

    • Simplexion Says:

      No. Bad. Do not try excuse a very poor argument. It was a lame argument to begin with. No-one is negatively affected by 2 consenting adults marrying.
      There is no good argument against homosexual marriage. Full stop. Stop trying to make your arguments seem reasonable. They will never be reasonable.

    • Simplexion Says:

      Let’s talk about Regnerus’s study…

  4. apologianick Says:

    Simpleton. The study was accepted and peer-reviewed. Regnerus is fine with admitting the limitations and has done so already. Have you read what he said about it?

  5. pinkagendist Says:

    Absolute rubbish. You’re not using logic. Your using junk science and fallacies to defend bigotry.

  6. apologianick Says:

    Could you define a bigot?

  7. pinkagendist Says:

    1. a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

    In practice that means a person who wants you to substitute your judgement for theirs. In the specific case of homosexuality, fundamentalist religious groups want to dictate to gays who they can or can’t marry and who they should or shouldn’t sleep with. To do this Christians propose bans that would force everyone to live according to the tenets of their faith.
    When something is legalized no one is forced to do it. Alcohol is legal and no one is forced to drink.
    When something is illegalized or banned, then everyone has to submit to a particular ideology and that’s what Christians are trying to do.

    When Christians use junk science to support that position they are being bigoted because that’s a demonstration they don’t care about the truth, they go to unusual lengths to promote their ideology at the expense of other free, tax-paying members of society.

  8. apologianick Says:

    What does this have to do with freedom of religion?

  9. pinkagendist Says:

    What does it have to do with freedom of religion?
    My dear, your freedom not to be forced to wear a headscarf is also everyone else’s freedom not to have you impose the tenets of your religion on them.
    My freedom of religion means I DON’T HAVE TO FOLLOW YOUR RELIGION. Any part of it.
    When you say “…who believe marriage is to attach children to their biological parents in a stable and committed relationship?” That’s part of YOUR RELIGION, and you cannot impose your religion’s idea’s on me.
    Get it?

    • apologianick Says:

      My religion also says not to murder or steal. Does that mean those don’t apply to you. To say a religion agrees with a claim does not mean it is dependent on a religion and marriage is not.

      • pinkagendist Says:

        It applies to me because it’s THE LAW, not because it’s part of your religion or your religious view, genius.

        Your religion doesn’t own marriage nor does it get to decide what marriage is for everyone else. The secular government decides that.

  10. apologianick Says:

    Why should not murdering be the law? Why should not stealing? Religions teach that after all. Why is it that you can say we should listen to religions on murder and stealing but when it comes to homosexuality you say they’re not reliable?

    Also, I in fact said my religion does not own marriage. I explicitly said marriage is not dependent on religion. Marriage is also not dependent on the government. If marriage is not dependent on the government, why should the government define it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: