Tag Archives: Opposite-Sex

Jennifer Roback Morse answers the best argument for same-sex marriage

Cloning her would solve the marriage problem
She'll show you how to defend marriage

Jennifer Roback Morse likes to debate, and she’s very good at it. So good, that you can learn how to debate about marriage too, just by listening to her debates.

The audio of her recent debate in Manhattan just came out.

The MP3 file is here. (46 minutes lecture, 27 minutes of Q&A)

The main case that she makes is similar to the case she made in the debate she had at Columbia University, which I blogged about before. But the Q&A is new, and very interesting. It starts at 46:00 and goes until the end. But one of the difficult questions she was asked really stood out.

The argument

Opposition to same-sex marriage is the same as opposition to inter-racial marriage.

The answer

There are two ways to respond:

1) Race has nothing to do with the central purpose of marriage as being the natural way of binding children to parents, and parents to each other. Race doesn’t affect those goals. But gender is relevant to the the purpose of marriage, because if a baby is formed from opposite sex parents then both parents have a biological link to the child, which is a stronger bond than a non-biological link. This improves the chances that the child will be raised in a stable environment.

2) A better historical analogy to opposing same-sex marriage is opposition to no-fault divorce (unilateral divorce). No-fault marriage started in California. They also argued that only a few people would be affected, that the children would not be harmed, studies show that it will be OK, etc. But in hindsight, we now know that it was a disaster for the family, and especially for children.

You can visit Dr. J’s blog here.

Those of you who are into Christian apologetics need to understand that atheism is embraced for a whole host of non-rational causes. One of them is growing up in a fatherless household. It has a profound impact on a child’s worldview when the child’s father is defective or absent. That means that every Christian apologist who knows the standard arguments also needs to know how to defend marriage. Insofar as socialism attacks marriage, the Christian apologist needs to be able to defend marriage on fiscal grounds, as well.

I’ve written before about no-fault divorce, pre/extra-marital sex, single-mother parenting and same-sex marriage. Here is my post that cites research in order to explain why people oppose same-sex marriage.

MUST-READ: Which family configuration is best for raising children?

Looks like Dr. J’s stylish new blog is featuring guests posts by scholars.


Here’s a new post by Dr. Trayce Hansen. She wrote an article on which family configuration is best for children. The title is “Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children”.

Here’s her thesis:

Same-sex marriage isn’t in the best interest of children. While we may empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we cannot allow the children to lose.

And here’s a sample:

Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.(5)

Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited (6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.(6) Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, (10) attempt suicide, (11) experience domestic violence and sexual assault, (12) and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.(13,14,15)

It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves (16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.(18,19,20,21)

The rest of the article, with references, is here. I like all of the footnotes because they provide a jumping off point for more research, and that’s how these things need to be evaluated. First, we find out what’s true. Then we adjust our lives based on what is really true. We need to act in a way such that others are not harmed by out decisions. We especially need to govern our actions to avoid behaviors that may harm born and unborn children.

It looks like the the article was suppressed due to pressure from gay activists.

The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal “The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter.

Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the “offending” articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion.

Apparently, making arguments and citing research papers was considered too “mean”.

Extra stuff

Look! I found some radio show clips that you can listen to on her web site:

And last of all, here is my post explaining why people oppose same-sex marriage. I also cite research!

CRISIS: Obama administration files court papers against the Defense of Marriage Act

Story from the Associated Press. (H/T Breitbart)


The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continue to defend the law.

[…]In the court papers, the administration urges the repeal of the law but says in the meantime, government lawyers will continue to defend it as a law on the books.

[…]”The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, because it prevents equal rights and benefits.

The law, often called DOMA, denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Obama has pledged to work to repeal the law.

I have written before about the real reasons why people oppose same-sex marriage: because it is bad for children and because it is bad for liberty. So, by extension, everyone who voted for Obama is (effectively) voting against the well-being of children and against liberty, especially religious liberty and freedom of speech. Obviously most of them don’t know what they are voting for, but that’s their own fault for not studying hard enough.

At this point, it may be worth recalling all the “Christians” who voted for the most pro-abortion President ever, and who have now voted for the most anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-child President ever.

2008 voting broken by religious groups
2008 voting broken by religious groups

(Click for larger image)

Part of the reason that I am disappointed with the church is because they never discuss anything related to the real world. Too much time is spent on inwardly-focused practices like singing. And then the “Bible-believing Christians” go out and vote for Democrat candidates who oppose authentic Christianity (and religious liberty itself). They seem do vote Democrat on the basis of vague feelings of compassion, which causes them to support big government social programs instead of individual charity.

I wonder if the pastors will finally learn their lesson when the state jails them for refusing to perform same-sex marriages or for citing the Bible? Or will they just compromise on moral issues tomorrow, the same way they compromise on intellectual rigor today? It was so easy to invent nice-sounding justifications for dismissing apologetics from the church. I am sure they will find it easy to justify same-sex marriage and abortion in time, in order to keep the pews filled. Just look at Rick Warren.

And I think the root of the problem is the unwillingness to talk about evidence for and against Christianity in the church, to show debates and to host public debates as well. If Christianity is not real, then people are not going to integrate their faith with the rest of their lives outside of church in the real world. And that real world includes the voting booth.

Note: I am angry. To my regular commenters, please cut me some slack. I went to church again on Sunday and it was fine. (Mostly useless, but not heretical). But right now, I am incensed at the spiritual malpractice that led to “Christians” voting for a thoroughly anti-Christian candidate for President.

Robert P. George explains why same-sex marriage is morally wrong

Famous Princeton University professor writing in the Wall Street Journal. (H/T ECM)

This is the best single article I’ve read on same-sex marriage.


If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.

Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.

You know, there’s no law that says that we could not strengthen marriage if we wanted to. Just saying. Children do better when conceived and raised in stable environments with a strong exclusive bond between two opposite-sex parents. Do we care about children’s welfare? If so, then we need strong marriages.