Building off of Trevin Wax’s excellent post stating the reasons he’s optimistic about being pro-life, I want to follow in like manner and offer the top ten reasons I’m optimistic about the preservation of natural marriage.

10. The Un-doing of Same-Sex Marriage Law

States, when given the opportunity to repeal same-sex marriage law, have taken the initial steps to do so. In Maine (a traditionally liberal state), voters by popular referendum repealed a same-sex marriage law in 2009. In Iowa, voters removed all three Supreme Court judges on the ballot who issued same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. A constitutional marriage amendment to undo the damage easily passed through the Iowa House, but has been stalled in the Senate to date.

9. The Unpersuasive Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage

Aside from ambiguous appeals to “equality,” proponents cannot articulate how granting same-sex marriage can lead to limiting alternative relationships (polygamy, consanguinity) and sexual expression (bestiality). Worse, proponents of same-sex marriage cannot adequately articulate how enshrining same-sex marriage in law will not conflict with religious liberty and those with moral and religious opposition to homosexuality. Further, proponents fail to offer compelling arguments on how same-sex relationships are anything other than the exception in human relationships and sexuality throughout history. Lastly, proponents of same-sex marriage cannot circumvent the generative component of the married relationship. Mere sexual expression is not, necessarily, deserving of government recognition. Pressed for definition, revisionists lack concrete definitions of marriage other than the locus of one’s relationship being determined by one’s libido.

8. The Persuasive Arguments for Natural Marriage

Self-evident in human existence, natural marriage needs little defense given its own obvious offense: It’s the naturally occurring and historic expression of human covenantal relationship. Serving as the only natural procreative outlet for the production of children, natural marriage serves as an incubator for inculcating the necessary values for each successive generation. Studies indicate that the benefits afforded children raised in a traditional family cannot be duplicated.

7. The Network of Coalitions

Proponents of same-sex marriage often subject their opponents to intimidation and accusations of discrimination and hatred. But with strength in numbers, organizations like the Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family, Alliance Defense Fund, and many others continue to stand as a bulwark against the redefinition of marriage. In addition, numerous church denominations, publishing outlets, and think tanks oppose same-sex marriage.Natural marriage is not without its defenders. The abundance of these organizations present not only the negative case for same-sex marriage, but also the positive case for the necessity and indispensible qualities of natural marriage.

6. The Forcefulness of State’s Rights

In the 30 states that have offered a marriage amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, all 30 states have responded overwhelmingly in the affirmative. Several others states have proposed legislation to amend their own state constitution with marriage amendments. To clarify, nowhere has a popular vote resulted in the affirmation of same-sex marriage.

5. The Black Church

Traditionally an ally of Democratic politics, the black church has offered strong support for traditional marriage. In Maryland, the black church has been particularly vocal in the recent attempts by the legislature to impose same-sex marriage. In being bipartisan and fighting for marriage, the black church is demonstrating that same-sex marriage is not relegated to only certain aspects of culture. Additionally, with the prevalence of fatherless households in the black community, what better demographic can speak to the social pathologies that result from being raised in a motherless or fatherless home. Same-sex marriage, by definition, is either a motherless or fatherless home.

4. Free Speech and Religious Liberty

Constitutionally, a mess is brewing. To date, I can recall no formal compromise that would simultaneously affirm same-sex marriage and religious liberty. Civil unions can exist alongsidereligious liberty, but Christians who object to same-sex marriage will be subject to more difficult and costly repercussions. In this current environment, a tremendous platform to proclaim religious liberty as a subset of first amendments rights exists. By posing our “rights” versus the “rights” of same-sex marriage proponents, the debate could be nullified or made moot. More specifically, religious rights are more clearly enumerated than that of claims to equal protection. Even more troubling, the court ruling in the UK which barred a Christian couple from adopting due to their religious opposition to homosexuality poses a question of unknown precedent. While we’re not the UK, it cannot yet be determined whether religious liberty will yield to gay rights via judicial misfeasance.

3. The Silent Majority

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, a lion was awakened that has since shaped American politics. Aghast at the moral decline around them, The Moral Majority arose to voice the concerns for millions of people. Given the trend in state voting patterns, statistics (not polls) indicate that the strong majority of Americans stand for traditional marriage. As this article at The Public Discourse so brilliantly explained, the polling results of same-sex marriage depend on the polling methods. The majority of Americans support natural marriage, but are intimidated to proclaim it.

2. Tactics Exposed

James Davidson Hunter has stated, “cultural power is the power to name reality.” The same-sex marriage movement has been wildly successful in shaping the cultural narrative. By touting same-sex marriage as unavoidable, proponents have promoted the myth of inevitability.  As more and more individuals uncover the media and cultural tactics employed, individuals will be (and are) emboldened not to yield ground on the marriage debate. If we can successfully re-cover the uniqueness of marriage and re-frame the debate, the tumult around the same-sex marriage debate will wither away. If we can also successfully move this debate away from tenuous “rights language” and toward procreative ability, the case for same-sex marriage will be exposed as absurdity.

1. The Permanence of Marriage as God’s Institution

No matter how the debate ends, true marriage will prevail. That is inevitable. If, in time, marriage wanes and fewer marriages occur, the witness of one God-designed marriage will out perform in beauty and purpose anything else seeking to imitate it. For this reason, Christians ought not fear the coming days or years. We don’t need to undermine gay marriage by a glib use of quotations around the phrase. Same-sex marriage does not exist and it never will exist. We simply need to marry, stay married, and proclaim that there is no other institution given to men by which the natural family can exist.

I do feel that I must end this with a call to action: My only forewarning concern is that the (conservative) political and academic atmosphere has done a better job of promoting marriage from a cultural viewpoint than evangelicals have done at defending marriage from a religious viewpoint. We should not require or need other disciplines to articulate our beliefs.

The best fuel for redefining marriage is redefinition by fracture: Divorce. If Christians are going to articulate the case for natural marriage, we’ll have to come alongside our fold of political philosophers and editorialists, but we’ll also have to repent of an anemic marriage culture in our own churches and replace it with a robust one.

In the marriage debates, we might find ourselves in some uncomfortable conversations. Equip yourself. Don’t roll over and play dead. That’s what the opponents of natural marriage want. The debate, today, is entering trench warfare. Persevere. We may be called a “bigot” in our best, most winsome replies but I’d still prefer that to “coward.” Would you?

(I want to thank my good friend Chris Nitzschke for providing feedback on this article).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted by Andrew Walker

Andrew T. Walker is an Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.


  1. Wow! I’m glad to be a FOA (Friend of Andrew). Take note Mere-O readers: this is the making of the next president at Family Research Council or Focus on the Family.

    Well done, Andrew. You’ve inspired optimism in me about natural marriage just when I was beginning to feel very pessimistic. You’ve presented your case with sound reasoning, careful detail, and civil tone. When I heard that the Obama administration declared DOMA unconstitutional because its perceived “animus” violates the Equal Protection Clause, I thought “It’s over!” But you’ve made me rethink this. The last best hope for natural marriage doesn’t rest with the federal government but state governments, whether through legislatures or referenda. Actually, the last best hope for natural marriage, as you wisely put in the number one slot, is its status as a God-ordained institution. Your closing remarks are powerful. Yes, indeed, we must “repent of an anemic marriage culture in our own churches and replace it with a robust one.” What you say reminds me of what Mark Galli, senior managing editor at Christianity Today, memorably wrote in his essay “Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over?” (7.24.2009):

    We cannot very well argue for the sanctity of marriage as a crucial social institution while we blithely go about divorcing and approving of remarriage at a rate that destabilizes marriage. We cannot say that an institution, like the state, has a perfect right to insist on certain values and behavior from its citizens while we refuse to submit to denominational or local church authority. We cannot tell gay couples that marriage is about something much larger than self-fulfillment when we, like the rest of heterosexual culture, delay marriage until we can experience life, and delay having children until we can enjoy each other for a few years. In short, we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue. Until we admit that, and take steps to amend our ways, our cries of alarm about gay marriage will echo off into oblivion.

    I’m grateful that “the (conservative) political and academic atmosphere” has promoted marriage from a natural viewpoint, but that won’t mean a thing if we don’t practice marriage from a religious viewpoint. Imagine how this culture war would be different if 75% or more of Christian marriages never ended in divorce. We would have something to SHOW the world, not merely something to TELL the world.

    In closing, I thought I’d mention a couple of resources that you (and maybe Mere-O) readers might want to pursue. Even though I think it ultimately fails, the best argument that I’ve read for same-sex marriage is in the following book because it addresses the issue from all angles – theological, legal, and political:

    William Stacy Johnson, A Time to Embrace: Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics (Eerdmans, 2006).

    I’d like to see a conservative Christian like yourself closely engage Johnson’s argument.

    And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Anthony Esolen’s excellent defense of traditional marriage in Touchstone magazine:

    Sanity & Matrimony: Ten Arguments in Defense of Marriage
    Part 1: July/August 2010
    Part 2: September/October 2010

    Keep up the great work, Andrew!


  2. You’re right that Christians have done a terrible job at demonstrating their commitment to the institution of marriage. Their vociferous defense of the institution of marriage, sacredly intoned, betrays the defensiveness that Christians feel over how they’ve violated and broken it down themselves.

    That said, your call to action is laudable.


  3. […] I said in this week’s post, talk of “rights” is an equivocation and wholly unconvincing when the […]


  4. The article (CP) linked to in #8 refers to a federal report that defines ‘nuclear family’ as “families consisting of two married adults who are the biological or adoptive parents of all children in the family.” So, that means recognizing same-sex marriages would increase the well-being of the biological and adoptive children raised in those nuclear families because they would then be married couples, the stability of which is the source of benefit. Do you have something against the well-being of children?

    Regarding the other study linked in #8 (Marriage Movement report), only one point in their definition of marriage could be read to exclude same-sex couples: Marriage is a family-making bond. My spouse and I have no children but we are a family. The same logic would apply to a same-sex couple.

    From that same MM report: “Marriage also changes the way in which other individuals, groups, and institutions think about and act toward the couple. The public, legal side of marriage increases couples’ confidence that their partnerships will last.”

    As that quote makes evident, marriage is inherently a public bond and recognizing the right of same-sex couples to form that stable, publicly-recognized bond would be good for children and for society as a whole. The general public recognizes that there is something wrong with denying the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples.

    Although we have different visions for it, we both have reasons for optimism about the future of marriage as a social institution.


  5. Andrew Walker March 4, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    With respect, your first paragraph is absurd. Your currying a label without any regard to its definition.

    Public recognition as a definable good towards a relational entity could be directed toward a multiplicity of scenarios. Again, we’re left with the question: What is marriage?

    Public sanction on the grounds of relational benefit is not sufficient to alter the definition of marriage.


  6. Andrew,

    I share your optimism about the traditional marriage movement.

    As an addendum to #1, let me add that Christians in the United States must do a greater job of articulating as well as expanding ministry opportunities for singles, Part of the issue I think is that the GLBTQ movement relies on the rather problematic logic that “no one should have to be alone (human beings as intrinsically relational),” and that”since human sexuality is ingrained, that humans should reject self-control” in favor of a life of licentiousness. If one takes his/her cues from the prophets, like Jeremiah, marriage was not necessary for him. I think there needs to be a serious discussion about abstinence and celibacy, especially among men in the church and society.


  7. I appreciate terseness but I’m not sure if I’m following you.

    If I’m understanding your remark about the first paragraph, my assertion is that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage would create more families that could be labeled as ‘nuclear families’ but I’m just switching labels. The current definition of ‘nuclear family’ would change if same-sex marriage was recognized by law (by the definition in the report to which you linked for support). In the present, your point about what that report indicated about nuclear family’s benefit to children stands. A switch in the labels would not presently impact the well-being of children raised by same-sex couples but the social benefit would be realized over time.

    The MM report to which you linked defines marriage pretty clearly so that’s the definition I was working with. And there were no criteria in that definition that a same-sex marriage does not meet.

    It’s beneficial to society and the children reared by legally married same sex couples, not simply “relational benefit,” by which I’m guessing you mean to their relationship.

    It makes no sense to bemoan low marriage rates and high divorce rates while denying the right of same-sex couples to marry. Extending the franchise would strengthen the institution and same-sex couples would likely have more respect for a hard-won right than heterosexual couples that take it for granted.


  8. @Prufrock: You’re missing the point. Mr. Walker upholds the gender complementarity that’s essential to natural marriage.


  9. @Christopher: I know that [male + female = marriage] is assumed in any discussion of marriage here on MereO but I willfully ignore that we don’t have a common starting point for discussing same-sex marriage and engage regardless, often resignedly.

    By way of explanation, I was once on yours and Mr. Walker’s side of this debate. My arguments against gay marriage weren’t as nuanced perhaps but the arguments all seem to boil down to procreation (or the potential for it). I no longer find that premise self-evident or the argument persuasive.

    On an unrelated note, I’ve been married for 7.5 years without children.


  10. @Prufrock: I don’t agree that the arguments for natural marriage “boil down to procreation (or the potential for it).” The essential character of natural marriage is gender complementarity: “A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Gay activitists and their sympathizers will succeed in redefining marriage if enough people are persuaded that gender is accidental to marriage. The next step of “liberation” will be convincing the public that dyads, familial relations, and human beings are accidental to marriage. If you think this is far-fetched, consider the Columbia University professor who is trying to defend a sexual relationship with his daughter because it’s consensual. Consider Edward Albee’s 2002 play The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia?, where a middle-aged man becomes bored with his marriage and falls in love with a goat. Consider how Mormon patriarchs and urban swingers would greet this “liberation”; it would sanction multiple wives and polyamorous pursuits.

    See Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint message, “Scalia Was Right.”


  11. Gender complementarity is about the parts fitting together and the procreative nature of those parts fitting together is at the basis of arguments that same-sex couples cannot marry. I do realize there are other aspects of gender complementarity but it does seem to boil down to the complementarity of sexual parts and the generative potential of that complementarity.

    A same-sex couple wanting to make a life and family together as a monogamous, married couple is not comparable to those. It’s not really ‘liberation’ if same-sex couples want their right to enter in a public, legally-binding commitment like marriage. The two individuals would be making the same vows of fidelity and monogamy that a heterosexual couple would.

    Dyad is a great concept. I agree it’s key to the definition of marriage and one that will be difficult to push over the edge of the slippery slope you envisioned above.


  12. The statement that struck me the most in your article was that same-sex marriage conflicts with religious liberty. How? By religious liberty do you mean the ability to practice our religious beliefs without persecution or harm? You allude to the possibility that by not affirming same-sex marriage Christians may be subject to repercussions. You give an example in the UK but have you seen that happen in the U.S.?

    It seems to me that a gay couple being married is not going to harm anyone else’s marriage and saying so is pure conjecture.

    The trouble I see with this argument (and other portions of your article) is you seem to uphold religious liberty over and above equal protection. Am I correct in assuming that? Because isn’t it equal protection which grants religious liberty? What about those who are not religious, like atheists and agnostics? Do they have less rights? Because while you try to redefine rights in terms of religious liberty, you forget that religious liberty is a right. And you also place those without religious convictions at the mercy of yours. The reason why the argument on rights is far more pertinent than an argument for religious liberty alone is, 1. the need for separation between religion and government,and 2. because religious liberty is a right, by fighting for others equal treatment under law, you are fighting for your own. What happens if the political climate shifts and someone wants to restrict YOUR rights (a.k.a. religious liberty)?

    If you are going to base your argument on religious liberty then what do you say about a Muslim’s religious liberty? Do people of others religions get to enjoy their religious liberties too?


    1. Andrew Walker March 4, 2011 at 8:54 pm

      I’m sorry, I don’t have a lot of time to reply, but let me give it a (brief) shot.

      Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) conflicts with religious liberty by one’s liberty being restricted on making moral pronouncements from a religious perspective. It might be a free speech issue as much as a liberty issue. Also, should same-sex marriage curry Federal sanction, there are little safeguards for pastors who refuse to either a) recognize such marriages or b) conduct their ceremonies.

      SSM harms natural marriage by altering the definition of marriage and its uniqueness. Also, statistics show that cultures which embrace SSM also follow with predictably low rates of traditional marriages which is bad for children and in turn, government. In general, SSM erodes the time-honored uniqueness of traditional marriage by simply devaluing it. It seems that your view of SSM is not too strong, as it your view of natural marriage is too weak.

      I’ll grant that the equal protection argument has merit, but you must in reply answer me if and when the tenets of equal protection can be granted in excess. What about a 61 year old man who wants to marry a 13 year old and the parents of the 13 year old consent? Does this arrangement seem morally askew? Should we grant them equal access under the law to marry each other? If no, from your perspective, then you are arguing that moral opinion has some determinative value on granting and extending equal protection. As am I.

      I know this opens up a whole other discussion, but equal protection ought to be given to either morally praiseworthy statuses or morally neutral statuses. To demonstrate, ought we grant equal rights to a group of people who insist that lying is morally praiseworthy or morally neutral? What if this group of individuals “Liars for America” want equal protection under the law which grants them unfettered exemption from culpability for lying?

      If we determine moral status, we’ll begin to unravel the ambiguity of rights.


  13. Andrew,

    Thanks for your reply.

    Equal protection guarantees rights and freedoms, but not to harm others. Obviously, a law would not be passed granting freedom to lie, since deception harms. I understand this is an example and you are trying to ask the question: when do we draw the line? If we allow gay marriage today will there be man-horse marriage tomorrow? I realize where we part is in my belief that gay marriage is not harmful and your belief that it is. To further complicate matters, it seems you believe gay marriage opens the door to other, morally offensive behavior. Seeing it from your point of view, that would be alarming and I can see why you would react that way.

    Basically, I disagree with you in several ways:

    1. I don’t find gay marriage morally offensive.
    2. I don’t think gay marriage will lead to other types of marriage and, further, you argue from a slippery slope fallacy. You could literally argue anything from that fallacy. Your argument doesn’t support your conclusions since you have to A, prove gay marriage is morally offensive, and B, prove it will lead to other moral offensives. One doesn’t necessarily follow the other and your argument is based more out of fear than logic.
    3. I don’t believe marriage is primarily a religious institution. I think this is something we can verify historically. Well before Christians were around there were people getting “married” or doing something culturally similar.
    4. Just because there are no safeguards for a pastor who does not want to marry a gay couple, does not mean there wont be. Arguing from this position is like putting the cart before the horse. Of course there aren’t safeguards for this. Gay marriage isn’t legal yet so there is no need for safeguards.

    As for your last paragraph on evaluating the morality of rights. There is no equal protection for people who want to harm others, intentionally or not. Laws allow AND prohibit. It’s the nature of a law to both say what you can do and what you can’t. In determining moral status we need to determine harm. Obviously, its a hard call to make what causes harm and what doesn’t.

    I would still like your thoughts on one of my other questions: whether or not a Muslim person has the same religious liberty as a Christian person?

    On another, more relational note, do you talk with homosexuals about their sexuality? Do you talk with them about their views on marriage? People tend to vilify and fear what they don’t understand. Most people I know want to be happy and want to share their happiness with others. Perhaps everyone I know wants that. Sure, there are people who think we should be able to marry cats, but they’re rare and their arguments are far from convincing. The homosexuals I know just want to marry someone they love. Simple as that. I wonder what it would look like to talk to a homosexual and legitimately hear them express that desire without judgment or fear?


    1. Andrew Walker March 5, 2011 at 9:34 am


      Thanks for the civil tone and debate.

      It’s apparent that we simply disagree on the moral status of homosexuality which will simply divide. As I’m unsure of whether you profess to be a Christian, the debate will have to cease on that front. If you’re a Christian, I must warn you that I find your position very troubling.

      I’m not committing a slippery slope argument as the conditions I’ve suggested may occur HAVE occurred in Europe.

      I do believe that marriage is a religious institution, but I also believe it a pre-political institution. Thus, the government altering the definition of an intuitively divine institution is problematic for me. Marriage can have transcendental meaning without being “religious.” A flag has transcendental meaning without being religious.

      Society has been structured around the design of natural families. Why alter it when the altered expansion of “family” is nothing other than a desire to have one’s sexual relationship civilly acknowledged? I’m for allowing homosexuals to live together; that’s fine. I’m not for enshrining their relationship as marriage and on par as the moral equivalent as natural marriage. Again, we simply disagree here.

      Regarding the proposed dangers towards pastors, you’re right, things may not happen to them, but we also don’t know that things will not happen to them. It’s an issue of providence that we aren’t privileged to. This I do know: in other countries, religious liberties have yielded ground to gay rights to where Christians are subjected to penalty for their belief.

      Yes, a Muslim has just as much religious liberty as a Christian.

      Yes, I do know homosexuals and have spoken with them on their position regarding sexuality and marriage. Lest you insinuate that I’m “vilifying” homosexuals, I can assure you this is not the case.

      As we disagree over the morality of the issue, I still find my original question compelling: “I’ll grant that the equal protection argument has merit, but you must in reply answer me if and when the tenets of equal protection can be granted in excess. What about a 61 year old man who wants to marry a 13 year old and the parents of the 13 year old consent? Does this arrangement seem morally askew? Should we grant them equal access under the law to marry each other? If no, from your perspective, then you are arguing that moral opinion has some determinative value on granting and extending equal protection. As am I.”

      At the end of the moral status of same-sex marriage is the dividing line.



  14. @Andrew: I hope you caught that I was joking about you not being concerned about the well-being of children. Our fundamental disagreement on issues should not preclude discussion entirely as we both make points/counterpoints to justify our respective positions. These can always be discussed.

    In addressing each other’s points, we may only reach a mutual understanding of why exactly we disagree but that is itself worthwhile.

    I conceded that your critique of my absurd paragraph was valid in the present. But you did not address my response to your terse critique, not even to acknowledge whether I understood it.


  15. […] Walker offers ten reasons to be optimistic about the preservation of natural marriage: 10. The Un-doing of Same-Sex Marriage […]


  16. I would like to see natural marriage advocates speak more about the rights of children, because – while we argue about marriage – meanwhile children are already in need of specific protections.

    Right now, children have (or are supposed to have) the right to a relationship with both biological parents, and the only justification for severing that bond is the child’s well-being. Social scientists have stated that keeping a child with a mother who is “ambivalent” is more harmful than giving the child to an adoptive couple.

    Once the child is available for adoption, every decision is supposed to be made from the vantage of the “child’s best interest” standard.

    Gay marriage requires inverting this, so that the child is forced to do what is “best” for the parent, rather than vice versa.

    Clearly, if we are treating the child as a person whose rights and interests matter as much as the gay couple’s, it makes no sense. Having a mother-relationship and a father-relationship are each important interests. Whether or not a child is demonstrably “harmed” in some narrowly defined way is beside the point: to have this relationship is valuable, and if you’re motivated by what’s best for the child, then you want to give that child both a father and a mother. This has nothing to do with being gay or straight: good parents do not rob their child of precious things for selfish reasons.

    Gays want to share children between the two of them for reasons of status and for the sense of the “experience” they’d like to have. But this needs to be recognized as being in conflict with what’s best for a child.

    And adopted children have a right to express both grief at the loss (because there is a loss involved) and curiosity (because being adopted does entail losing significant chunks of identity information). Every adopted child should have the comfort of knowing that his or her mother gave him up out of love – not that the child was deliberately created using donated parts. No child should have to face that his own “loving” parents deliberately severed him from his biological truth because their interest in playing a role is more important to them than the child’s feelings. The connections between parent and child cannot always be preserved, but should always be preserved as far as possible, and should always be guided by the well-being of the child when these connections have to be severed.

    The gay marriage argument is in conflict with all of these. It means granting procreative rights to couples that aren’t procreative, which necessarily means that their children will not have the right to a relationship with their biological parent.

    What is perhaps worse: all motherless or fatherless children ought to be able to express their wish that they had a mother or father. No child should be pressured into feeling guilt or shame at such thoughts. Perhaps the most pernicious argument in the gay marriage debate is the one that says a child is not losing out on anything by having two same-sex parents – a myth that requires a child to lie for his parents, perhaps at great emotional expense.


    1. Blake, I believe what you are saying is absolutely true! When Rosie O’Donnell’s son wanted to know why he didn’t have a daddy, she said, “Because I want a mommy.” This denies his right to have a daddy. This is one of the saddest things in the world. Once again, an adult(s) take away rights of a child to please themselves. She “divorced” her “mommy” and is now hooked up in an another “mommy” relationship. This is NOT in the best interests of her child. Ironically, an adult will DECIDE if they should have both a biological mommy and daddy. All true researchers who study children agree that a child does best with a biological mother and father. It doesn’t matter if these children say they are happy with two of the same parents because they will never know how it really should have been. We must protect them. Their parents’ union is not a model for most marriages in the world.


  17. Excellent site. Lots of useful information here. I’m sending it to a few pals ans additionally sharing in delicious. And naturally, thanks for your sweat!


  18. Alec D Brooks May 10, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    If it is a matter of justice or fairness that homosexuals are allowed to marry, how are bisexuals to be accommodated? Will such persons be allowed to marry both a man and a woman, in order to satisfy their needs or desires? If not, why not?


    1. Exactly. Once homosexuals gain their supposed ‘right’ to claim marriage’ then how can we logically and morally discriminate against the bi-sexual? Law should be consistent or it will rightly be seen to be unfair and prejudiced (never mind that law itself is by definition necessarily prejudiced and discriminatory). If homosexual marriage is normalised (this is their agenda no less) then three, or greater, party marriages will eventually follow because these people claim to be ‘naturally’ attracted to both genders and given sexual desire must, in liberal thinking, be expressed lest the individual suffer unhealthy repression there will be no logically consistent argument against it.
      So polyamory et al will also be deemed normal by the state in time. Imagine the confusion and chaos of the possible permutations. If I’m bi-sexual I NEED to marry both genders to be true to my sexuality. To do otherwise would be a sham. So I marry a man and a woman. They might marry each other too or perhaps just me and they each chose another spouse (only if they are also bi-sexual like me). Assuming I married 2 bi-sexuals who each don’t love and themselves marry my choice of ‘other’ spouse but marry their own – we are now a group of five who are legally bound to certain others in the group but not all others. I have children with my female spouse. The pre-nups better be good if I want claim to them as our kids given her female spouse might want to parent them too. Lawyers will make a killing when these relationships (or just some of them) break down.
      Even deciding which house to buy is gonna be fun. Probably need mediation, which the government should pay for given, morally speaking, it should be helping relationships that it has legitimized as being beneficial to society.
      Polyamory etc is the trailer behind the homosexual marriage truck. I will totally agree that not all homosexuals wanting to be married, or their supporters, have this development in their agenda but others will. When homosexuality was legalized in NZ in 1985 they claimed that all they wanted was that and that seeking legally recognized marriage would never happen. Despite ~80-90% of the public against it the politicians saw it pass into law by a few votes and immediately the fight was on for recognised civil unions. Again the promise “we don’t need or want your marriage thing…” but that has been the aim since they won the civil unions bill. And here we are. So who of us can say what else is wanted. I say they will want their marriage status to be 100% normalised which means speaking against it or refusing to wed them or hire church, or other facilities, for such weddings will be criminalised. In my personal experience they want to silence any voice that would dare say this is abnormal/not ideal.


  19. Thank you for outlining the beauty of life as it comes into the world. Even though the world has sin, hurt, horror and pain, life is our way out. Thank you.


  20. Common logic dictates the reality behind the human ability to give birth to new life:

    If two humans of the same gender join in union with one-another and engage is sexual intercourse, then they cannot bring life into existence due to their lack of the other genders physical attributes. Thus, the supposed reality of same sex union will deprive itself of physical existence.


  21. Andrew,while you have already made some of the basic philosophical points in summary, there was a very thorough and helpful scholarly article published in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 245-287, Winter 2010 called “What is marriage?”.

    As one example, it reminded me of a few instances in which your idea of religious liberty giving way to equality HAVE happened in the U.S. In Massachusetts and California, lawsuits have ruled against religious speech and conscientious objectors, including parents trying to object to classroom content that conflicted with their religious views.


  22. […] WHY I’M OPTIMISTIC ABOUT NATURAL MARRIAGE, by Andrew Walker, Mere Orthodoxy, March 3, 2011 […]


  23. […] complementary.  They are like the same poles of a magnet, repelling each other.  Quoting Andrew Walker: Same-sex marriage does not exist and it never will […]


  24. […] WHY I’M OPTIMISTIC ABOUT NATURAL MARRIAGE, by Andrew Walker, Mere Orthodoxy, March 3, 2011 […]


  25. […] WHY I’M OPTIMISTIC ABOUT NATURAL MARRIAGE, by Andrew Walker, Mere Orthodoxy, March 3, 2011 […]


  26. […] WHY I’M OPTIMISTIC ABOUT NATURAL MARRIAGE, by Andrew Walker, Mere Orthodoxy, March 3, 2011 […]


  27. […] WHY I’M OPTIMISTIC ABOUT NATURAL MARRIAGE, by Andrew Walker, Mere Orthodoxy, March 3, 2011 […]


  28. […] WHY I’M OPTIMISTIC ABOUT NATURAL MARRIAGE, by Andrew Walker, Mere Orthodoxy, March 3, 2011 […]


  29. […] WHY I’M OPTIMISTIC ABOUT NATURAL MARRIAGE, by Andrew Walker, Mere Orthodoxy, March 3, 2011 […]


  30. […] Why I’m Optimistic About Natural Marriage […]


  31. […] Why I’m Optimistic About Natural Marriage […]


Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *