Why We are Losing the Global Marriage Fight
Linda Harvey
When I became a Christian over twenty years ago and then a
social conservative, I did so because of what I read in Scripture
about God's standard for sexual acts. Sexual intimacy is reserved
for one man and one woman within marriage. All other sexual
practices are wrong. Those of us in the pro-family movement can
agree on this basic premise, along with the corresponding provision
for children: that they deserve to be raised by their own mothers
and fathers.These are high-minded and noble values. So why are we losing the cultural war, and being called everything from bigots to human rights violators? One possible explanation is because we often do not fight the real battle where it rages, and where it matters most to our opponents. They care little about "marriage" as it turns out. Their top priority is to be able to freely engage in homosexual behavior and silence any of its critics.
It is critical to confront the real opposition: those who want to normalize homosexual behavior both inside faux same sex "marriages" and outside them, as part of dating, hooking up, or just plain old experimentation.
And also, as a "normal" option for children, starting in their early teens, with "identities" claimed even in grade school. That's what GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, has been advocating in U.S. public education for twenty years, and they have been able to get over 4,000 homosexual clubs into schools.
These clubs talk little about marriage and children. They talk instead about unnatural behaviors, identities, "rights," and how to thwart conservative critics who stand in their way. The only reason there's been a fight over marriage is because of the well-funded and fiercely-determined homosexual behavior movement. Behavior and identity are the core issues. We must address these elements specifically, because they are the "rights" being demanded in many public policy debates that do not deal with marriage.
For instance, it's extremely important to thoughtfully oppose the attempt to mainstream "LGBT" behaviors to 12 to 17-year-olds in school, but we can't effectively do this unless we address the deviance of those behaviors - that they do not fit the human body, are associated with higher sexually transmitted infection risks, and warp human desire away from a more productive end.
The "defend marriage only" strategy also gains little ground when contending against efforts to criminalize objections to homosexuality, as actionable offenses of "discrimination" or "hate speech" or a violation of "human rights." And further, employing only a freedom of conscience or religious freedom argument avoids the core issue: that men who have sex with men are a public health menace to everyone, irrespective of religious issues.
You don't have to be a Christian to see the problem with sodomy and even non-believers ought to have some public recourse to object to efforts to mainstream these behaviors.
Women who pair with other women are engaging in deviant behavior. Yes, many western countries have ceded over the "sodomy" issue, but we actually need to take it back, because one cannot address the danger to children about same sex "dating," for instance, without a direct dialogue about the behaviour.
And children do need and deserve their own mothers and fathers, but this argument is unpersuasive to the 16-year-old whose immediate need is knowledge that same sex relations are a high risk choice in her life right now, years before she considers a permanent partner or children.
And of course, unless we stand on the objective fact of male and female biology, it becomes tough to challenge the assertion of rights for the "transgendered" person. And if one's philosophy is to accommodate a "live and let live" approach for adults, we must again review the inapplicability of such a tactic to the primary school child whose parents are insisting that he be called by girl names, dress as a girl and be respected in this new "identity." This has nothing to do with marriage but everything to do with normalizing the deviance that has its roots in the worldwide homosexual rights movement.
A solid and consistent public policy approach to the irrefutable fact of male/female biology would bolster our arguments across the board. There indeed is societal degradation in virtually every way with the normalization of homosexual behavior, leaving children completely vulnerable, and at younger and younger ages. And they are vulnerable not just to their own desires, but same sex sexual activity becomes a perpetual option for children and teens simply in the course of normal social interactions.
Normalizing homosexual behavior increases the likelihood that many more children and teens will experiment with these behaviors. This experimentation is not addressed in "marriage" arguments.
Thirteen-year-olds are usually unconcerned about marriage. It's a distant option in the future of each, and the most hardened of our youth -- those who need to be persuaded about the wisdom of a traditional moral approach-- do not respond to a marriage-centered argument.
But 13-year-olds can quickly grasp that "part A" does not fit "part B" in human anatomy. Current sex education is trying to maintain otherwise, as anal intercourse and the use of sex "toys" are being incorporated into much classroom teaching as something "everyone" might want to do. In this manner, debauched practices of homosexuality are being normalized as our children are desensitized. We need to stand against this and say why.
So if we want to protect our children from corruption and begin to use arguments that relate to youth concerns, we will address the practices of sodomy both inside pretend "marriage" and outside it, as always wrong, as never the basis of sound committed relationships and certainly not a marital union, and that from the authentic marriage bed arises the most positive fruit: new humans.
No conception is possible for same sex pairs, and it's not because
they insulted the good name of "marriage." It's because the
actual sex acts these people engage in, and their own anatomy,
prevents what is impossible.
It all comes down to the behavior and that is where our argument
must start and continue. 