My personal rule for the content

of my column is that the topic has to have some direct impact on families

and children. The current debate over gay marriage certainly does.

Let me set the debate of gay

and lesbian lifestyle aside. Everyone has his or her own personal belief

about lifestyle choice, but for my purpose here, homosexuality isn't

the issue. Instead, I want to address the implications same-sex marriage

has for our culture.

There is little academic debate

over the fact that a child ideally needs both a mother and father at home

providing, among many other things, both male and female role models for

the child - something you cannot have in a single-parent home nor in same-sex

marriages/partnerships. While I know that some people grow up just fine

without a mother or father, research for decades has demonstrated that

children have the best chance for success in school, emotional development,

and development of healthy relationships when they are raised in a stable,

two-parent, husband and wife home.

For every person that grows

up "just fine" in the home of a gay or lesbian couple or in

a single-parent family, I can show you one or more who didn't. Anecdotal

experience proves nothing. Instead of our personal experience and political

or religious leanings, we have to operate on what the preponderance of

the data demonstrates.

Even though advocates for same-sex

marriage argue that "loving relationships" should be recognized

beyond the narrow scope of heterosexual marriage, I take issue with this

flawed logic. All loving relationships are not equal. Laws that allow

same-sex marriages inherently change the definition of what the word "family"

means, and perhaps even worse, establish a precedent that the concept

of family itself can be defined by anyone who has an opinion on the subject.

Let's suppose for the

sake of argument that we could all agree that there is nothing wrong with

gay or lesbian marriages and let's ignore the evidence that demonstrates

that such relationships put children at a disadvantage. Let us also agree

with the truth that some homosexuals can be just as good at parenting

as a heterosexual. The bigger cultural issue that would still remain has

to do with the question of where the redefining of family stops.

Should the marriage between

brother and sister be legally sanctioned? What about brother-brother,

sister-sister, father-son, mother-son, and so on? What about the marriage

between three men and two women or could we legally recognize a marriage

between two men, four minors and a woman? If all loving relationships

are equal, who can say that any of these options is ridiculous? In fact,

who says they even have to be "loving" relationships at all.

Maybe family and marriage could simply be business ventures that work

to the financial advantage of all involved parties.

If you think I'm overreacting

you are mistaken. The debate has already begun. Just weeks ago a convicted

polygamist used a gay sex ruling as a basis for his appeal. How long will

it be before other laws (marriage between siblings, marriage between minors,

etc.) are challenged on the same basis? Think I'm crazy? Look up

the study in the American Psychologist, the flagship publication of the

American Psychological Association from several years ago that argued

that there was nothing wrong with pedophilia. The stage is clearly set.

muttering "amen" or you are calling me a moralistic fundamentalist.

However, how can anyone argue that we shouldn't "moralize"?

There is a limit to what even the most liberal thinkers will allow. Should

the law recognize marriage between people and animals? If we shouldn't

moralize, then who is to say this isn't acceptable? I find it interesting

and somewhat comical that those liberated thinkers who differ with my

opinion will argue that it is wrong to believe what I choose to believe.

Isn't that moralizing? They moralize in their own argument about

how we shouldn't moralize.

The debate, then, isn't

between homosexual or straight, nor is it between those who moralize and

those who do not. It is about whose moral position will become precedent.

I do not despise those who engage in homosexual lifestyles and I do not

despise those who are pious in their religious faiths. However, this argument

is about more than the right to marry. It is about how we define ourselves

and the process we use to define truth. To pretend that such a debate

has no effect on our children is analogous to burying one's head

in the sand.

(Gregory K. Moffatt, a resident

of Brooks, is a a psychologist, author and college professor also in private

practice as a counselor, specializing with children. His column appears

regularly in HealthWise.

Back

to Healthwise Home Page |