6 reasons why same-sex relationships are harmful, and damaging.


An increase in tolerance for same-sex marriage:

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, a survey conducted with a sample range of 1821 adults across the USA, suggests that the:

“Support for same-sex marriage has increased dramatically over the past decade, but there are substantial differences in opinions across generations. Currently, 68% of Millennials favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, compared with 55% of Gen Xers, 48% of Boomers and 38% of the Silent generation.”

Support may be one thing, but the impact is an altogether separate topic, and in this brief analysis of a few of the significant issues involved I will argue that homosexual marriage causes pain for many of those involved.

However, a disclaimer needs to be added. Although I do not fear repercussions for what I try my utmost to respectfully write, or what people will think of me, I still do not wish to come across as belligerent, or intolerant, and critics of same-sex relationships are very often painted in that light. Rather, disagreement is not hate, just as I disagree with someone who may support a specific sports team over one I favour, or the fact that I disagree with an atheist. In neither case do I hate people I disagree with, nor will I shove my views down the throat of my opponent, and tell him how to live. But no-one can prevent me from having an opinion, and I happen to have an opinion on this touchy topic. I shall express it freely here, but if I do offend you unintentionally please forgive me, and let me know in the comment section below.

1) A child is denied a father or a mother:

Homosexual relationships are particularly damaging for children caught in the middle, and thus it has always, and will always, be in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This is confirmed by the difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent or a relative. This means that a child will not be raised by parents in a natural relationship, and one of his parents will have no blood relationship to him. The child will forever be deprived of a biological father or mother role model as he grows up.

In a study of 2988 people between the ages 18 to 39 suggests that “Young adults from broken homes in which a parent had had a same-sex relationship reported modestly more psychological and social problems in their current lives than peers from other families that had experienced divorce and other disruptions, a new study has found, stirring bitter debate among partisans on gay marriage.”

Other findings of the study suggested that “38 percent of those who had a lesbian mother said they were currently on public assistance, compared with 31 percent of those whose parents divorced late and 10 percent of those who grew up in a traditional family,” and that “those with a gay parent reported less education on average and more sexual partners; the same was true of those who grew up in other nontraditional households, to a slightly lesser extent.”

As the sociologist Penn Amato, a supporter of same-sex marriage, has commented: “We know, for instance, that many people with a gay parent were essentially raised in a stepfamily, and went through a divorce, both of which are associated with modest but real disadvantages.” (Carey, Benedict, ‘Debate on a Study Examining Gay Parents’, New York Times)

2) Homosexual relationships will likely cause children to be “sexually confused”:

Psychologist Trayce Hansen, who has specialized in the areas of marriage, parenting, male/female differences and homosexuality, comments:

“Supporters of same-sex marriage think that children really just need love, but this is not the case. Research shows that the ideal family structure for children is to be raised by both a mother and a father. Only this traditional type of family gives children the chance to relate to both a same-sex parent and a parent of the opposite sex. Although the research on same-sex parenting is very limited, some of it suggests that children raised in same-sex households will be more likely to be sexually confused and to experiment with sex. Also if same-sex marriage is allowed, it opens the door for other types of non-traditional marriage, such as polygamous relationships. Homosexual couples clearly can be just as loving to children as heterosexual couples, but love is not enough.” (Hansen, Trayce, Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children)

With this in mind and as a society we need to protect those who are vulnerable and easily influenced, in this case children, and although same-sex marriage may be in the best interest of adult homosexuals, it actually damages the children involved. Nevertheless, on the benefits of heterosexual marriage Hansen comments that:

“…children raised in such families are more likely to thrive—psychologically, mentally, and physically—than children reared in any other kind of family configuration”

According to a Swedish study that spanned 20 years and included over 22 000 children found that fathers reduce behavioural problems in boys and psychological problems in girls, enhance cognitive development, and decrease delinquency. The study posted on Pubmed articulates:

“There is certain evidence that cohabitation with the mother and her male partner is associated with less externalising behavioural problems. Active and regular engagement with the child predicts a range of positive outcomes, although no specific form of engagement has been shown to yield better outcomes than another. Father engagement seems to have differential effects on desirable outcomes by reducing the frequency of behavioural problems in boys and psychological problems in young women, and enhancing cognitive development, while decreasing delinquency and economic disadvantage in low SES families.” (Pubmed, Fathers involvement and children’s developmental outcomes: systematic review of longitudinal studies)

3) It fails to create a family and instead produces a sterile union:

Imagine that everyone was to suddenly become a homosexual, the human race would die out within a century as same-sex relationships in no way or form produces offspring, whereas heterosexual relationships create families. On top of that, and in order for a same-sex couple to have children they can only do so via costly and artificial means. It is therefore, not the natural tendency of such a union to create families, and on this note I cannot in good conscience call a same-sex union a marriage, or give it the benefits of a true marriage. Paul Nathanson, a homosexual himself, has identified at least five functions that marriage serves, and these things every culture must do in order to survive and thrive, they are:

-Foster the bonding between men and women.

-Foster the birth and rearing of children.

-Foster the bonding between men and children.

-Foster some form of healthy masculine identity.

-Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults.

Such parameters need to be met, or we as a species would die out, so how do homosexual relationships further hinder our society? According to the opening paragraph of the US Constitution, something known as the Preamble, we read:

“We, the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.”

What this text explicitly states is that its purpose is to promote the general welfare for the American people, and to ensure their posterity. Again, same-sex marriage is in conflict with this, and it wouldn’t promote the general welfare of the society, in fact it would hinder the process.

4) Same-sex marriage is potentially dangerous, and “unfaithful”:

According to a study in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology: “Gay monogamous relationships are rarely faithful. ‘Monogamous’ seems to imply some primary emotional commitment, while causal sex continues on the side.”

Also, this study of 535 gay and bisexual men in Australia suggested that “Anal intercourse without condoms ranks high in physical and emotional significance though it is known to be relatively unsafe with regard to transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.”

In yet another study of same-sex relationships conducted by the German sexologist and homosexual Dr. Martin Dannecker, he studied 900 homosexuals in 1991 living in what they defined as “steady relationships”. However, Dannecker found that 83% of those males had numerous sexual encounters outside their partnerships over a one-year period. His conclusion reads that there are: “clear differences in the manner of sexual gratification” between single and non-single gay men were the reverse of what he expected.

On the homosexual men in steady relationships he wrote: “the average number of homosexual contacts per person was 115 in the past year.” In Contrast, single gay men had only 45 sexual contacts. (Wittmeier, Carmen. ‘Now They Know The Other Half’)

What this illustrates is that the concept of a man and a woman entering into a lifetime commitment is radically violated, and henceforth the results of same-sex relationships seem shocking and dangerous as suggested by this study.

In another informative piece found in the homosexual men’s magazine Genre a survey of 1037 readers in October of 1996 provided some insight. The results are as followers: “One of the single largest groups in the gay community still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous couples.” On top of that 52% have had sex in a public park, 45% have participated in three-way sex, 42% have had sex with more than 100 different partners, and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners. (‘Sex Survey Results,’ Genre, October 1996)

This suggests that same-sex relationships in some obvious manner encourages high level of promiscuity and infidelity.

5) Heterosexual marriage is an “intrinsic good”:

As Barack Obama once stated: “I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” But is what one concludes based off what he thinks would be nice be a good reasoning process? Surely not. Philosopher Francis Beckwith in his article “Wedding Bell Blues; Understanding the Same-Sex Marriage Debate” comments:

“Since marriage is an intrinsic good, just as justice is an intrinsic good, a culture that does not nourish, encourage, and protect traditional marriage will do so at its own peril, just as it would imperil itself if it no longer understood justice as an intrinsic good. … Republican (small “r”) government results from good citizens civilized by the institutions of family, honest work, and good religion. If, to quote Aristotle, statecraft is soulcraft, then the end of the state should be to produce good citizens and therefore provide a privileged and protected position for these institutions. The state, consequently, should treat traditional marriage as privileged and protected in contrast to other alternatives.”

Same-sex relationships and marriages deny the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women, whereas heterosexual relationships provide these complementary benefits, hence, as Beckwith explains, is intrinsically good.

6) Deep down we know it’s not “natural”:

I think to most people it is not natural and will never be, for instance, to look at two hairy grown men sucking each others tongues is enough to cause many to look the opposite way. We also wouldn’t be having this debate in our contemporary society if same-sex marriage and relationships were deemed to be natural and appropriate. Whether one likes it or not traditional marriage has always been between a man and a woman and societies have benefited in large from it, nothing one argues can go against that. So, on that note to call something marriage does not make it a marriage. Marriage has always been an intimate bond between a man and a woman, and of which assists the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the two in the relationship. As the anthropologist Kingsley Davis says:

“The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval … of a couple’s engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children.”

Also, Maggie Gallagher comments that “marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce.”

Some of its proponents wish to damage traditional heterosexual marriage:

Although this is not a reason to disagree with same sex relationships and marriages this is still jarring, and thus is worth mentioning what some proponents of same-sex marriage really intend on doing. In an interview with Xtra Ryan Conrad, a member of the American group Against Equality, comments: “And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit…”

According to Sally Kohn in her article ‘Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!’ writes:

“But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships.”

Subsequently, in the words of Alex Gabriel: “Wouldn’t marriage’s death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? …Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state’s eyes between married and unmarried citizens.” (Gabriel, Alex. ‘Comment: Gay marriage has its queer critics, too’)

What this suggests is that it’s, for some, not only is it the acceptance of same-sex marriage but rather the intentional destruction of traditional heterosexual sex marriage. As the Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto asserts: “We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there.”

Although I wouldn’t read too much into these extremely radical views, I still believe it is important to illuminate the true intentions of some of the same-sex marriage proponents.

In conclusion:

With the knowledge set in place that same-sex marriages and relationships are often unfaithful (New Zealand Journal of Sociology), damaging and are not “in the best interest of children” (Trayce Hansem & Pubmed), potentially dangerous regarding sexually ransmitted diseases (‘Sex Survey Results‘, Genre), extremely promiscuous (Martin Dannecke & Wittmeier, Carmen. ‘Now They Know The Other Half), negates against the five aspects needed for a society to survive (Paul Nathanson), goes against the American Constitution that aims to procure the prosperity of the nation (US Constitution, Preamble), and is antithetical to traditional marriage (Maggie Gallagher & Kingsley Davis). Several same-sex proponents are also radically vindictive, namely: Ryan Conrad, Sally Kohn, Alex Gabriel, and the words of the Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto. This is all antithetical and diametrically opposed to the intrinsic good of heterosexual marriage that provides the complementary and self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women.

In closing, although I would never force my view upon another person lest I be accused, and rightfully so, of intolerance, I still cannot in good conscience, for these reasons, encourage same-sex relationships and marriages. Not only do I see it as harmful to those involved within the confines of same-sex marriage, I also see it as potentially dangerous for society at large. My heart goes out sincerely to those who struggle with such temptations, and to those who reap its consequences.


3 responses to “6 reasons why same-sex relationships are harmful, and damaging.

  1. 1. That homosexuals would be “worse parents”, even if it’s not true, doesn’t say anything about homosexuality in itself. There’s material out there even showing that children to homosexuals are happier than their peers.

    2. Sexual confusion happens to homosexual children more than any, because they are told that being homosexual is wrong and have expectations from their surroundings to be straight.

    3. Homosexuals are fertile and making babies is not rocket science.

    4. HIV infections don’t have anything to do with morality, nor is having a lot of sex automatically ‘bad’. HIV is more prevalent among heterosexuals in some countries. It doesn’t make heterosexuality wrong.

    Lots of religious views on sex in this point. Sex is not bad, and you will find different kinds of homosexuals just like you will find different kind of heterosexuals – some monogamous, some not.

    5. What is the point even? “Heterosexual marriage is intrinsically good”. Wow. What is the argument here?

    Is it good that you’d deny homosexuals their happiness to live fulfilling lives with someone they’re attracted to and love?

    6. We do know it’s natural, it’s actually very common in nature. But ‘natural’ is by no means something that automatically means ‘moral’ or ‘good’, a lot of animals do things we’d never do. Like kill the male after sex and feed the meat to the children.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s