Soul-Care Articles: Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Biblically-based, Clinically-sound, Truth-oriented

Posts tagged ‘same-sex marriage’

Is It True That Jesus Never Addressed Same-Sex Marriage?

SOURCE:  Family Life/Daniel Akin

According to the Scriptures, Jesus spoke clearly about sex and marriage, and about issues of the heart.

Today it is popular among those promoting same-sex marriage to say that Jesus never addressed the issue, that He was silent on the subject.

Those who affirm the historical and traditional understanding of marriage between a man and woman often are admonished to go and read the Bible more carefully. If we do so, we are told, we will see that Jesus never addressed the issue. So, the question that I want to raise is, “Is this assertion correct?” Is it indeed a fact that Jesus never addresses the issue of same-sex marriage?

When one goes to the Gospels to see exactly what Jesus did say, one will discover that He addressed very clearly both the issues of sex and marriage. He addresses both their use and misuse. And, as He speaks to both subjects, He makes it plain that issues of the heart are of critical importance.

What did Jesus say about sex?

Jesus believed that sex is a good gift from a great God. He also believed that sex was a good gift to be enjoyed within a monogamous, heterosexual covenant of marriage. On this He is crystal clear. In Mark 7 Jesus addresses the fact that all sin is ultimately an issue of the heart. Jesus was never after behavioral modification. Jesus was always after heart transformation. Change the heart and you truly change the person.

Thus, when He lists a catalog of sins in Mark 7:21-22, He makes it clear that all of these sins are ultimately matters of the heart. It is the idols of the heart that Jesus is out to eradicate. Among those sins of the heart that often give way to sinful actions He would include both sexual immorality and adultery (Mark 7:21). The phrase “sexual immorality,” in a biblical context, would speak of any sexual behavior outside the covenant of marriage between a man and woman.

Therefore, Jesus viewed premarital sex, adultery, and homosexual behavior as sinful. And He knew that the cure for each is a transformation of the heart made possible by the good news of the gospel. The gospel changes us so that now we are enabled to do not what we want, but what God wants. Here we find real freedom and joy.

What about the issue of marriage?

Is it truly the case that Jesus never spoke to the issue in terms of gender? The answer is a simple no. He gives His perspective on this when He addresses the issue in Matthew 19:4-6. There, speaking to the institution of marriage, Jesus is clear when He says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

That Jesus was committed to heterosexual marriage could not be more evident. A man is to leave his parents and be joined to a woman who becomes his wife. This is heterosexual marriage. That He also was committed to the permanence and fidelity of marriage is clear as well.

So how might we sum up the issue?

First, Jesus came to deliver all people from all sin. Such sin, He was convinced, originated in and was ultimately a matter of the heart.

Second, Jesus made it clear that sex is a good gift from a great God, and this good gift is to be enjoyed within heterosexual covenantal marriage. It is simply undeniable that Jesus assumed heterosexual marriage as God’s design and plan.

Third, Jesus sees all sexual activity outside this covenant as sinful.

Fourth, it is a very dangerous and illegitimate interpretive strategy to bracket the words of Jesus and read into them the meaning you would like to find. We must not isolate Jesus from His affirmation of the Old Testament as the Word of God nor divorce Him from His first century Jewish context.

The hope found in Jesus

Fifth, and this is really good news, Jesus loves both the heterosexual sinner and the homosexual sinner and promises free forgiveness and complete deliverance to each and everyone who comes to Him.

John 8 tells the story of a woman caught in adultery. The religious legalists want to stone her, but Jesus intervenes and prevents her murder. He then looks upon the woman and, with grace and tenderness, tells her that He does not condemn her.

Then He says to her, “go and sin no more.” In Matthew 11:28 Jesus speaks to every one of us weighed down under the terrible weight and burden of sin. Listen to these tender words of the Savior, “Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.”

This is the hope that is found in Jesus. This is the hope found in the gospel. Whether one is guilty of heterosexual or homosexual sin, one will find grace, forgiveness, and freedom at the foot of the cross where the ground is always level.

When I came to fully trust Jesus as my Lord and Savior at the age of 20, I determined that I wanted to think like Jesus and live like Jesus for the rest of my life. When it comes to sex I want to think like Jesus. When it comes to marriage I want to think like Jesus.

That means I will affirm covenantal heterosexual marriage. It also means loving each and every person regardless of his or her lifestyle choices. It means, as His representative, proclaiming His gospel and extending the transforming grace of the gospel to others that takes us where we are, but wonderfully and amazingly, does not leave us there. That is a hope and a promise that followers of Jesus gladly extend to everyone, because we have been recipients of that same amazing grace.

Same-sex Attraction: Truth–But No Stone Throwing

SOURCE:  Eric Metaxas/RPM Ministries

Eric Metaxas at BreakPoint shares great wisdom about a humble, grace-oriented approach to speaking about human sexuality. You can read and listen to his thoughts at No Stone Throwing.

Here’s a portion of what Eric shared (headers added by RPM Ministries).

—————————————————————————————————————————

Think Twice

It’s easy to get angry at someone in open sexual sin. But you might think twice before picking up that stone…. Sometimes we Christians demonize our opponents instead of loving them. We often forget that, apart from the grace of God, we might well be on the other side of the issue.

Truth Is a Person

This is especially true when it comes to the issue of human sexuality. To understand why, we must first remember that, for the Christian, truth is a person: Jesus Christ. We see the world and our place in it in light of the person and work of Jesus.

So we should never forget that just as Jesus was the incarnation of God’s love, mercy, and compassion for us, we are called to model these for our neighbor.

Now this doesn’t mean that we should shy from calling sin by its name — on the contrary, sometimes this is exactly what loving our neighbor requires. But we should do this in sorrow rather than in anger and never out of a sense of condemnation — because we know that since none of us is without sin, none of us gets to cast the first stone.

Humility

So, when we address a hot-button issue like same-sex attraction or same-sex marriage, we should always keep in mind our own struggles and brokenness when it comes to sexuality.

If you are blessed not to have struggled in this area, then recall your struggles in other areas. If you can’t think of any, well, you might want to think about the sin of pride. I’m just saying.

….As Christians know, sex is intended to serve a unitive purpose — it’s supposed to be the physical expression of the spiritual union between husband and wife. As the Bible puts it, “the two become one flesh.”

Seeking in a “Disordered” Manner

It may come as a surprise to many of us, but many people in same-sex relationships are seeking the same thing. The problem is that they can’t achieve what they are seeking, because they are seeking it in what Catholic moral theology calls a “disordered” manner. Likewise, many advocates of same-sex marriage aren’t out to subvert marriage, at least not consciously. They’re pursuing the goods of marriage, all be it, in a disordered fashion.

Thus when we rightly say that the Christian response to same-sex attraction is chastity, we must remember that chastity is difficult enough for heterosexual Christians — who at least have the hope of expressing their sexuality in marriage.

The same is true with same-sex marriage. As God said in Genesis 2, “it is not good for man to be alone.” We were designed for the deep kind of physical and spiritual connection that comes through marriage. So even while we insist that that kind of connection is only available between a man and a woman, we must empathize with and grieve for those who cannot achieve it.

Speak in Love or Don’t Speak

If we can’t, then we should consider keeping our mouths shut. Because if we forget to offer love and support along with the truth, we aren’t much better than the scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus rebuked for placing heavy loads on people’s shoulders while not lifting a finger to move them.

The world doesn’t need more Pharisees, it needs people who speak the truth in love — love that never forgets Who is the Truth.

New Study Suggests that Traditional Marriage Promotes Child Welfare

SOURCE:  American Association of Christian Counselors

“How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?” Sociologist Mark Regnerus (University of Texas) investigated this question in the New Family Structures Study, published in the Social Science Research journal.

As with any social science investigation, the answer is “it depends.” However, the findings suggest that a mom and a dad do indeed impact a child’s life in unique ways. The researcher stated, “[T]he stable, two-parent biological married model [is] the far more common and accomplished workhorse of the American household, and still — according to the data, at least — the safest place for a kid.”

Conducting a detailed review of the study, the Manhattan Declaration reports, “[W]hen comparing the children of biological mother-father families to those with a mother who had engaged in a same-sex relationship, Regnerus found statistically-significant differences on 24 of 40 outcomes, including educational attainment, depression, unemployment, relationship fidelity, and marijuana use.”

Liberty Counsel’s Chairman Mat Staver also points out several alarming findings:

  • Parental pedophilia is widespread: 23% of children with a lesbian mother reported having been touched sexually by a parent or adult, compared to 2% of those raised by biological parents.
  • Rape is rampant: 31% of children raised by a lesbian mother and 25% raised by a homosexual man report that they were forced to have sex against their will, compared to 8% from intact families.
  • Sexually transmitted disease (STD) is epidemic: over 20% of those brought up by two women and 25% raised by two men reported having contracted an STD, compared to 8% from natural families.
  • Suicidal tendencies are startling: 24% of children raised by homosexual men and 12% of children raised by lesbian mothers admitted to having recently contemplated suicide, compared to 5% of those raised by biological parents or even a single parent.

Involving nearly 3,000 children and adolescents, the study’s random sampling structure and large sample size establish its scientific credibility. The study challenges the common hypothesis that family structure has no impact on child outcomes. In fact, APA stated in 2005, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

However, Regnerus’ article concludes: “[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them.”

While more research is needed in this area, the findings suggest that children raised by parents with same-sex relationships do indeed face increased risks. As Christian counselors and caregivers, we help protect children by supporting traditional marriage and challenging both mothers and fathers to be involved in their kids’ lives.

NEW STUDY: Children of Homosexuals Fare Worse on Most Outcomes

SOURCE:  Family Research Council

NEW STUDY ON HOMOSEXUAL PARENTS TOPS ALL PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Children of Homosexuals Fare Worse on Most Outcomes

By Peter Sprigg

In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups–with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated “suboptimal” (Regnerus’ word) in almost every category.

The Debate Over Homosexual Parents

In the larger cultural, political, and legal debates over homosexuality, one significant smaller debate has been over homosexual parents. Do children who are raised by homosexual parents or caregivers suffer disadvantages in comparison to children raised in other family structures–particularly children raised by a married mother and father? This question is essential to political and ethical debates over adoption, foster care, and artificial reproductive technology, and it is highly relevant to the raging debate over same-sex “marriage.” The argument that “children need a mom and a dad” is central to the defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Here is how the debate over the optimal family structure for children and the impact of homosexual parents has usually gone:

  • Pro-family organizations (like Family Research Council) assert, “Social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage.” This statement is true, and rests on a large and robust collection of studies.
  • Pro-homosexual activists respond, “Ah, but most of those studies compared children raised by a married couple with those raised by divorced or single parents–not with homosexual parents.” (This is also true–in large part because the homosexual population, and especially the population of homosexuals raising children, is so small that it is difficult to obtain a representative sample.)
  • The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, “Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents.”
  • Pro-family groups respond with a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents–rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father.

In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA’s claim that “[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA’s own standards by “provid[ing] evidence of statistical power.” As Marks so carefully documents, “[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.”

To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father–but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children–but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive.

The New Family Structures Study–Restoring the “Gold Standard”

This logjam of dueling studies has been broken by the work that Regnerus has undertaken. Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his “New Family Structures Study” (NFSS) deserves to be considered the “gold standard” in this field.

Another improvement Regnerus has made is in his method of collecting data and measuring outcomes for children in various family structures. Some previous studies collected data while the subjects were still children living at home with their parent or parents–making it impossible to know what the effects of the home environment might be once they reach adulthood. Some such studies even relied, in some cases exclusively, on the self-report of the parent. This raised a serious question of “self-presentation bias”–the tendency of the parent to give answers that will make herself and her child look good.

Regnerus, on the other hand, has surveyed young adults, ages 18 to 39, and asked them about their experiences growing up (and their life circumstances in the present). While these reports are not entirely objective, they are likely to be more reliable than parental self-reports, and allow evaluation of long-term impacts.

The study collected information from its subjects on forty different outcomes. They fall into three groups:

  • Some are essentially yes-or-no questions: are you currently married, are you currently unemployed, have you thought recently about suicide?
  • Other questions asked respondents to place themselves on a scale–for example, of educational attainment, happiness or depression, and household income.
  • Finally, “event-count” outcomes involve reporting the frequency of certain experiences–e.g., smoking marijuana or being arrested–and the number of sex partners.

Nearly 15,000 people were “screened” for potential participation in the study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically robust conclusions in comparing different family structures.

What the Study Found

The study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with “lesbian mothers” and those with “gay fathers” separately. Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to compare children with “homosexual parents” to those from other family structures. When compared with outcomes for children raised by an “intact biological family” (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of “gay fathers” were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of “gay fathers” used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families).

Of course, anyone who has had a college course in statistics knows that when a survey shows there are differences between two groups, it is important to test whether that finding is “statistically significant.” This is because it is always possible, by chance, that a sample may not accurately reflect the overall population on a particular point. However, through statistical analysis researchers can calculate the likelihood of this, and when they have a high level of confidence that a difference identified in the survey represents an actual difference in the national population, we say that finding is “statistically significant.” (This does not mean the other findings areunimportant–just that we cannot have as high a level of confidence in them.)

Regnerus has analyzed his findings, and their statistical significance, in two ways–first by a simple and direct comparison between what is reported by the children of homosexual parents and the children of “intact biological families” (“IBFs”), and second by “controlling” for a variety of other characteristics. “Controlling for income,” for example, would mean showing that “IBF” children do not do better just because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents are the same. Again, Regnerus has done these comparisons for “LMs” (children of “lesbian mothers”) and “GFs” (children of gay fathers) separately.

There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and “gay” fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones–virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

  • Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
  • Have lower educational attainment
  • Report less safety and security in their family of origin
  • Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin
  • Are more likely to suffer from depression
  • Have been arrested more often
  • If they are female, have had more sexual partners–both male and female

The high mathematical standard of “statistical significance” was more difficult to reach for the children of “gay fathers” in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:

  • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
  • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
  • Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
  • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
  • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
  • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
  • Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”
  • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will
  • Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others
  • Use marijuana more frequently
  • Smoke more frequently
  • Watch TV for long periods more frequently
  • Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

Differences in Sexuality

When comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality–experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves–were among the most striking. While not all of the findings mentioned below have the same level of “statistical significance” as those mentioned above, they remain important.

At one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that children of homosexuals “are no more likely to be gay” than children of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.

The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual)partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as manymale (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have “ever been physically forced” to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).

These data require more detailed exploration and explanation. A number of researchers have pointed out that self-identified homosexual adults (both men and women) are more likely to report having been victims of child sexual abuse. However, Family Research Council and other pro-family organizations have been criticized for also pointing to evidence suggesting that homosexual men are more likely to commit acts of child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men. And experts in child sexual abuse in general say that men are most often the perpetrators, regardless of the sex of the victim. Therefore, the finding that children of lesbian mothers are significantly more likely to have been victims of sexual touching by “a parent or adult caregiver” than even the children of homosexual fathers is counter-intuitive.

However, it is important to note what we do not know about such experiences from the data that have been published. The fact that a child of a lesbian mother was touched by “a parent or adult caregiver” does not mean that the lesbian mother was herself the parent or caregiver who did the “touching.” An alternative scenario mentioned by Regnerus, for example–hypothetical, but plausible–is one in which a child is molested by her biological father; her mother divorces her father; and the mother later enters into a lesbian relationship.

Limitations of the Study

While the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding “causality.” In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes–other factors could be at work.

This is true in a strict scientific sense–but because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of “homosexual parenting.”

The definition of what it means to have a homosexual parent is also a loose one in this study–by necessity, in order to maximize the sample size of homosexual parents. Not all of those who reported that a parent was in a same-sex relationship even lived with that parent during the relationship; many who did, did not live with the partner as well. Only 23% of those with a lesbian mother, and only 2% of those with a homosexual father, had spent as long as three years living in a household with the homosexual parent and the parent’s partner at the same time. Details like this involving the actual timeline of these children’s lives can reportedly be found in Regnerus’ dataset, which is to be made available to other researchers later this year.

Figures like these suggest a need for more research, to distinguish, for example, the effects of living with a homosexual parent from having a non-custodial one, or the effects of living with a homosexual single parent vs. a homosexual couple. But they also point out something of note for public policy debates on “gay families”–the stereotype put forward by pro-homosexual activists, of a same-sex couple jointly parenting a child from birth (following either adoption or the use of artificial reproductive technology), represents a scenario that is extraordinarily rare in real life. Most “homosexual parents” have their own biological children who were conceived in the context of a previous heterosexual relationship or marriage, which then ended before the person entered into homosexual relationships.

Conclusion

The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, “gay families,” and same-sex “marriage.” The myths that children of homosexual parents are “no different” from other children and suffer “no harm” from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.


[1] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

[2] Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

Science Confirms Reality- Children Really Need Both Mom and Dad

SOURCE:  Austin Nimocks

For the last two decades, proponents of same-sex “marriage” have tirelessly worked to convince average, everyday citizens that same-sex relationships and same-sex “parenting” are no different than traditional relationships and parenting, and in some cases, have even advocated that they are better.

In other words, they sell the idea that excluding half of humanity (moms or dads) from the lives of children means nothing and, in some instances, is good for them.

As part of this deception, two fallacies are promulgated.

Number one, that “there are large numbers of same-sex couples in the U.S. who are providing a stable, long-term parenting relationship for their children.” And secondly, that the children raised by those couples are as happy and healthy as those raised by a man and wife in a low conflict marriage. Usually, these claims are supported by so-called “research” whose methodological flaws are so glaring that they are hardly worthy of mention.

Regarding the first fallacy, there simply are not “large numbers of same-sex couples in the U.S. who are providing a stable, long-term parenting relationship for their children.”

In fact:

A 2006 study of same sex “marriages” in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages,” such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce. Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex “marriage” in the U.S. academy, acknowledge that there is more instability among lesbian parents.

And as to the second fallacy, and giving same-sex relationships every benefit of the doubt, the University of Texas’ Dr. Mark Regnerus recently found that the only time children raised in a same-sex household have comparable levels of happiness and healthiness is when the comparison is between “the grown children of parents who had a same-sex relationship” and “the grown children of divorced, adopted, single-parented, or step-parented arrangements.”

Regnerus also found the happiness and healthiness claim to be patently false if “one compares the grown children of a parent who had a same-sex relationship to those from an intact biological family.” Moreover, Regnerus also “found that children who have had a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship are much more likely to suffer from depression as young adults than the children who come from intact biological families.”

It’s common for those who defend marriage as one man and one woman to be called “bigots”—a pejorative meant to send the signal that one person thinks his opinion is predominant over everyone else’s convictions. However, facts being facts, those who appear to be shortsighted are the ones who defend bad science for the sake of their ideology and sexual behavior—all at the expense of children.

Thus, when we genuinely think about it, Regnerus’ study only confirms what we know and understand deep down—that both halves of humanity are unique, special, and make an important difference in the lives of children. And to those who maintain that same-sex couples present “no difference” in the lives of the children they raise, I ask the question nobody ever seems able to answer—which parent doesn’t matter? The mother or the father?

Redefining Marriage: How Tragic!

SOURCE:  Andrew Comiskey

Obama’s Endorsement of Gay Marriage Fails Us All

How tragic that the most influential political leader on earth would use his power to redefine marriage.

He bowed his knee to the lie that justice means giving gays all they clamor for, rather than what they need.

In that, Obama failed to love gays well. He has failed to act authentically as a Christian, and has failed generations to come whose foundations will be further shaken by yet another battering of marriage.

My hope is that Obama’s delusion would wake up all Christians to the good battle Jesus calls us to in this time. We must make every effort to extend God’s mercy to those with SSA in the hope that they might repent unto Jesus Christ. And we must make every effort to ensure that marriage is upheld as one man for one woman for the sake of the children they create.

Grieved as we are, we can take heart that God loves marriage and our fight for its essence. Through marriage, He dignifies human sexuality and renders it truly creative and life-giving.

Concerns About Same-Sex Marriage

SOURCE:  Taken from Eternal Perspective Ministries/Randy Alcorn

Expressing Our Concerns about Same Sex Marriage in a Pluralistic Culture

These are mostly (with a few exceptions) extrabiblical reasons for the social and spiritual importance of marriage continuing to be the church and state blessed union of one man and one woman:

· Men and women fulfill different roles in society and the family; children need to see and experience those roles to understand and emulate them.

· A male father and a female mother nurture and protect children in different and equally important ways; children need both forms of nurture and protection.

· Society has flourished on the one man, one woman model of marriage for thousands of years; to change it will introduce change, some of which will produce negative social issues we cannot foresee.

· The mother, besides giving birth, fulfills the important role of nourishing the children, which creates a bond between mother and child that lasts throughout life.

· Men and women see the world differently, and a child must have the benefit of both perspectives in order to live a balanced life.

· Children learn about their opposite gender from the parent of the opposite gender.

· Maintaining hearth and home requires skills dominant in both men and women: women are better suited to multitasking, the very requirement for raising multiple children, while men are more project oriented, the quality needed by the hunter/gather.

· God, who arranged the command structure in the home to minimize conflict and maximize nurture, has stated that the husband (man) is the head of the home.

· Marriage has been the societal building block for millennia; it has developed as the method by which cultures pass on, from generation to generation, who and what they are. Since cultures are made up of men, women and children, to effectively pass on cultural values the family should reflect the cultural makeup of one man, one woman (an equal number), and their natural children where possible.

· Marriage between one man and one woman is perfectly integrated by sex. An identical number of men and women get married each year, side-by-side, hand-in-hand. The mechanism of marriage is perfectly balanced. No man may become a husband unless a woman becomes a wife at the same moment.

· As the societal building block, the family has also developed as the best gauge—the canary in the mine—that protects culture from harmful change. Since change can harm men, women, and children (and the family as a whole), the most effective harbinger of detrimental societal change is the traditional family.

· A procreative marriage, one where children are the offspring of the husband and wife, is more stable and long lasting—the husband and wife have the added incentive of keeping the relationship healthy and alive since leaving it involves leaving their natural children.

· Children have the inherent human right to expect that they will be born into a societal and spiritual norm, the best family structure their God and society has created, and not into a family structure that thousands of years of human history has deemed to be, at best, a social experiment. Children have a right to be born into intact one man, one woman families. The society should work to make sure that happens as often as humanly possible.

· Marriage encourages men to share the burdens of child rearing and binds fathers to their children.

· Marriage provides the optimal setting in which mothers and fathers can raise their own boys and girls to enter a world that consists exclusively of men and women.

· From time to time war visits a nation, and in our culture, and we suspect others, male soldiers (the predominant gender of soldiers) fight more fiercely and selflessly, sustain greater hardships, maintain more steadfast commitments, when fighting for their families—wives and natural children, or girlfriends.

“Homophobia” and discrimination have nothing to do with opposition to same-sex marriage. Opposition to it is not an attack on homosexuality or homosexuals; it is simply the belief that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, based on practical cultural and social reasons as the list above makes clear.

Also, “discrimination” necessarily involves infringement of a basic human right. A marriage license is not a basic human right. It is a privilege which has always required the government’s permission, as do many other parts of life, such as getting a driver’s license or a business license (to sell food, for example). Just as the ability to freely move about on roads and the ability to pursue the occupation of one’s choice both require certain preconditions, so it must be true of marriage. One of those preconditions for the granting of this privilege (in addition to age and health based
considerations) is that the participants must be one man and one woman . . . .

Tag Cloud