The Gay Marriage Fantasy
By Steve Farrell (10/21/04)
It’s normal and healthy for people to engage their minds in a little fantasy every now and again, especially when those fantasies translate into goals, and those goals into positive and productive changes in the life of the dreamer and the world about us.
We can all think of examples.
But not all fantasies are equal. Some are far from normal, and if and when they translate into goals and changes, they hurt everyone around them.
Gay Marriage is such a fantasy.
Linda Nuttall, a mover and shaker in passing Texas’s 2003 DOMA legislation, and a staff writer at Defend Marriage, has permitted me to share with you her version of the gay marriage fantasy. Listen in and then consider some of the hard facts which back her assumptions (see footnotes below).
Once upon a time there was a handsome young man with high hopes for his future. As he neared the end of his college education, he met and fell in love with the person he had always dreamed of spending the rest of his life with. They had both kept themselves pure so that when they met, they could commit to each other and then consummate their relationship, knowing that special gift was only for that one special person.
They were both male, so marriage in the traditional sense was not an option. However, they had several choices for making their commitment. They could make it privately, between the two of them, perhaps with a few close friends and family. They could join a religious community that encouraged them to make their commitment. Or they could go to a place where the laws included their type of relationship in its legal definition of marriage.
After considering alternatives, and wanting to be truly committed in every way, they moved to The Netherlands. There they lived separately while they established residency, but spent good relationship-building time together after work and on weekends. At the appropriate time they invited friends and family and had a small wedding.
Eventually they moved back to their home in Middle America. Even though they weren’t afforded the same governmental financial advantages of other married couples, they knew they were committed solely to each other, and that was what was important.
In time they wanted to start raising a family. They found themselves unable to conceive as a couple, so they turned to adoption. Adoption is always a difficult process, and their case was no exception. But they found that about a third of adoption agencies welcomed their kind of couple as parents. Eventually they were allowed to adopt a baby boy. One of them opted to stay home to raise this child for several years, a choice they never regretted.
The boy grew and gave them great joy. He was as normal as any other children, even though he was adopted and didn’t physically resemble his two dads. As a youth he kept their family values: save yourself for that one true relationship, whoever it might be, and then stay together forever.
They lived a long and happy life. The End.
Yes, it’s a fairy tale. It’s fantasy. It has never happened. Not in the thousands of years of human history that homosexuality has existed.
But change the couple in the story to a young man and a young woman, and suddenly it seems almost typical. Looking for and finding the one permanent relationship is not the story of every heterosexual couple; it’s getting more rare, with the media trying to convince us it’s impossible. But it is in fact the true experience for a high percentage of traditional marriages, and has been so for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures.
It was true for me. It was true for most of my high school friends—all with our marriages intact at the time of our 20th reunion. In my experience, raised in a religious community during the 60s and 70s, the ‘fairy tale’ was the rule. When mistakes were made, when divorces happened, those were considered tragedies felt deeply by the individual sufferers and those who cared about them. They were rare.
The ‘fairy tale’ my friends and I experienced had an additional joy. We bore children. Usually several. Even those few of us who had to resort to adoption took great joy in raising the next generation of children, and passing along the values that gave us what often seems like a very blessed life. For heterosexuals the ‘fairy tale’ can be real because it is the natural, traditional way to form families.
Homosexual couples can’t live the ideal. It’s not that they lack the ability to remain committed because society has not granted them the honor of marriage; society has not granted them the honor because they lack the ability to stay committed. They lack fidelity—apparently in 100% of relationships. (1)
Other people have been left without the legal recourse of marriage. That happened to a number of slaves prior to Emancipation in this very country. They responded by appointing their own community leaders and granting them authority to perform ceremonies to tie couples together (2) because that is the natural way for families to form, and no man-made law could stop them from forming their families with a commitment.
If homosexuals were capable of living a life as heterosexuals except with that single gender preference difference, it would not be impossible to find an example.
Another reason society has not recognized homosexuality as just another family form is that homosexuals lack the ability to form a family. They cannot procreate—without exception. Society didn’t cause this discrimination; nature did. A mother and father, staying together to raise a child to adulthood, is not only the natural family form, but the best way of blessing the lives of children, women, and men. (3) Society has a stake in encouraging this form as much as possible.
Homosexuality is not a natural equivalent alternative. It is, in every way, a perversion—unnatural and unhealthy. (4) The gay marriage issue is not a question of rights vs. discrimination. It is a question of supporting what is not only natural but most beneficial for society (the natural family) vs. encouraging what is logically a behavioral aberration that should be treated rather than honored. (5)
If society makes the mistake of pretending homosexual relationships are equivalent to marriage, then society says that it does not value procreation, parenting, commitment, or fidelity—behaviors civilization has depended on for its perpetuation. (6) And if those things are not part of marriage, then that diminishes marriage to nothing more than honoring, with governmental perquisites, anyone who has a current sexual partner.
Does honoring homosexual relationships with the title and benefits of marriage harm heterosexual marriage? Yes. It nullifies the very purpose of marriage. It takes away the option of real marriage for everyone.
Linda Nuttall makes a lot of sense. The footnotes below back her up. If only the two major parties, their candidates, and the media would speak so frankly.
Footnotes
1. Consider, for example, the research of McWhirter and Mattison. They interviewed 156 male couples and concluded that in these relationships "fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior, but rather by their emotional commitment to one another" (The Male Couple; David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D.; Prentice-Hall, 1984; p 252, 3). The researchers—a gay couple themselves—reported that two-thirds of the couples began their relationship with the expectation of sexual exclusivity, but that the partners became more permissive with time. They found that ALL the couples who had been together at least 5 years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. In fact, the authors concluded that "the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together." See also After the Ball; Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen; Doubleday, 1989. The book acknowledges that "the cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an 'open relationship,' for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples" (p330). As to whether legal ‘marriage’ leads to fidelity, see e.g., Xiridou, Maria, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” 1029-1038 AIDS, 17 (7) May 2, 2003. “Those with a steady partner and those without reported having an average of 8 and 22 casual partners per year, respectively.”
2. The custom is referred to as “jumping the broom.”
3. Assertions concerning the benefits of marriage can be found, along with additional details and references to specific studies, in “Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” 2002, Institute for American Values, available at www.americanvalues.org . See also Linda J. Waite’s tabulations from the 1987-1988 waves of the National Survey of Families and Households available in Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, 2000. “The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially” (New York: Doubleday): 155-156.
4. Considering health problems related to homosexuality, see Hogg, R. S., S. A. Strathdee, K. J. Craib, M. V. O?Shaughnessy, J. S. Montaner, and M. T. Schechter, “Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, 657-661, 1997. “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.”
For mental health problems see, e.g., Theo B. M. Sandfort, De Graaqf, Bilj, and Schable, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study,” 85 (Archives of General Psychiatry 85 (January 2001) (“The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders”); Richard Herrell, et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry 867 (October 1999) (“Same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures” and “is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity”); David M. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 876 (October 1999) (“Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associates being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.”) While some may argue that these findings are “caused by society oppression” (J Michael Bailey, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness,” Archives of General Psychiatry 883 and 884 October 1999), this is not the only possible explanation. The survey of findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study found a significant greater risk for psychiatric disorders among homosexuals, even though “the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant” than most of the world. Sandfort, et al, above, at 89. Other possible explanations include hypotheses that “homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” and that “increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation.” J. Michael Bailey, above, at 884. Also, Sandfort et al., above, at 85-91. (Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, also three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide. Additionally, this research originates in the Netherlands where homosexuality is much more mainstream and accepted.) Substance abuse is an additional health concern of those in the homosexual lifestyle: Timothy J. Dailey, “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality” and associated notes, Family Research Council” The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than heterosexual women. Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent) … Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”
Domestic violence is an additional health risk for homosexuals: Susan C. Turnell, A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample, 13 Journal of Family Violence, 281 (2000) (finding that 44% of gay men report having experienced physical violence in their relationships, including 14% reporting sexual violence, with 83% reporting emotional abuse. Among lesbians: 55% acknowledge having experienced physical violence, 14% report sexual abuse and 84% report emotional abuse); See also, U.S. Department of Justice Study, Citizen Magazine, (January 2000) (reporting that the U.S. Justice Study found an epidemic of violence between homosexuals: an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. By contrast, the most recent numbers—1999—for “hate crimes” based on sexual orientation totaled a relatively low 1,558 victims). See also New York Times article “Alleged Murder Is Further Proof of Domestic Violence as Major Health Risk of Homosexuals, Traditional Values Group Says,” available at http://www.afaanwpa.org, quoting Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Northwestern Pennsylvania: “The truth is that acts of outside aggression against individuals involved in homosexual behavior, while always highly publicized, are rare. The far greater threat of violence to individuals involved in homosexual relationships” a staggering 50,000 percent higher risk, according to research by homosexual activists themselves—is the epidemic of domestic violence such individuals commit against each other.” See also David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, p. 14, “The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple … we believe as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year in the United States.”
5. For a discussion about treatment, consider “Born That Way? Facts and Fiction about Homosexuality, Factors Beyond Biology,” with associated notes, by A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH, Meridian Magazine (online at www.meridianmagazine.com), Sept. 3, 2004.
6. It is interesting to note that countries which have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman (well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
For information concerning the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf .
(Printer friendly version) Email: Steve Farrell
