It’s always been odd to me that apologetics websites get involved in same-sex marriage, because same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity which is what apologetics is about. Inevitably, the articles these sites publish are arguing against it, or as they like to put it “putting a biblical case”. One such was this from Saints and Skeptics where it goes into why same-sex marriage is not just unbiblical but bad for society. It then concludes with 4 reasons why same-sex marriage should be opposed. For the purposes of this article I’m only going to address the 4 reasons here, so here goes:
First, given the level of family breakdown in the secularised West, it would be inadvisable for the law to teach that marriage exists for adult satisfaction, and not to create and sustain new families.
The breakdown in families started long before same-sex couples started campaigning for equal rights under the law. Larry King has had 8 divorces, nearly half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, my parents got divorced. If you want to be concerned about family break down, start there (but Christians are oddly quiet about divorce). The notion that same-sex marriage is going to teach that “marriage exists for adult satisfaction” is grotesque because it’s ultimately saying “same-sex couples only want to be with each other for sex” It’s completely lost on them that LGBT people are capable of love and commitment, something even Archbishop Justin Welby recognizes when he same-sex couples can teach us heterosexuals a thing or two and indeed praised the quality of same-sex relationships. Just on the last point, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg commented that if the argument that marriages for creating families, infertile and/or elderly couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry either!
Second, it is a bad idea to have a law that replaces “fatherhood” and “motherhood” with “parenting.” The institution of marriage recognises the importance of sexual complementarity; we should not casually dispense with the presence of a father and mother in a child’s life.
This is just a slap in the face to all the single mothers and fathers out there. Having a mother and father in your life provides zero guarantee of a child being raised better than one without a mother and a father. Indeed, there are studies that have suggested that children of same-sex couples do better. Other studies contradict this which leads me to one conclusion; how well a child does has bugger all to do with the sexuality and number of their parents.
Third marriage would be redefined as romantic attachment or companionship. This changes the meaning of every marriage by changing the meaning and function of the institution of marriage. People do not marry simply because they are lonely, or because they are romantically attracted to one another. They marry because they want to see another person’s face in the face of their children; their marriage says “together, we would be suited to make a new life, and to raise it, and everyone else is obliged to honour that fact!”
What a load of nonsense, which is basically a re-wording of the other nonsense they put above. Again, it completely reduces same-sex couples to just wanting sex. It completely ignores married couples who can’t have children or choose not to. I am not marrying my fiance because “I want to see another persons face in my children” I’m marrying her because I want to commit myself to her for the rest of my life. Now you can argue I don’t necessarily need to get married for that to happen, but I want to, she wants to. Children have got nothing to do with it; but it goes way way beyond just romantic attraction and companionship and that can’t be touched by same-sex marriage. Given the reason that they put up next, their use of the word “obliged” seems a bit hypocritical.
Fourth, the law would compel many people to honour and recognise a new form of relationship, no matter what their spiritual or moral convictions. This law would tell Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and Christians that they are wrong: sex is not for the creation of new families, but can have whatever meaning we attach to it. In the long run, some loss of religious liberty is inevitable. Given that same-sex partnerships can be legally protected without redefining marriage, the result will be a net loss of liberty for society as a whole.
Yes, it absolutely is saying they are wrong, so what? When you have 2 competing statements, one is saying other is wrong; it’s called logic. It’s no different to the law (before it was changed) telling same-sex couples they were wrong about marriage. It’s the same with any law that people don’t agree with. The problem with civil partnerships which is what I’m guessing they’re referring to when they say “that same-sex partnerships can be legally protected without redefining marriage”, is that it’s effectively saying “you’re not good enough for marriage, have this instead” Ultimately, his reason can be translated into “I can’t discriminate against who I want therefore it’s a loss of liberty for everyone”
Saints and Skeptics are more on the conservative side of theology than me, but I’m disappointed in them for this piece. They’re usually pretty good in their arguments or the ones of the pieces they choose to publish, but this isn’t even close to being a reasoned argument. They should probably just stick to apologetics because it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage anyway.