Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Never Measure Up To The Real Thing

Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Never Measure Up To The Real Thing

The Federalist - Monday August 24, 2015

by Dustin Siggins and David Flynn

According to American icon and signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, “The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

This bit of wisdom is seen in many of America’s policies and traditions, including the abolition of slavery and our respect for religious liberty.

It’s also why marriage deserves special attention from government — and its redefinition does not.

What is it about marriage that earns special attention from government when no other sexual relationship does? As David told Huffington Post reporter Jen Bendery last month on a panel at The Daily Caller, marriage has numerous benefits that are exclusive to heterosexual relationships.

Here are four reasons same-sex marriage will never measure up to the real thing:

1. The Species Only Survives Because Of Heterosexual Relationships

Marriage produces more taxpayers. By providing a social stamp of approval and public policies friendly to marriage, government is encouraging the survival of the human species and the creation of more tax dollars in the environment that — study after study has found — is best for children.

While same-sex couples may have strong feelings for each other, such feelings can never translate into new life without using heterosexual-based technology like IVF. It is mind-bogglingly hypocritical that the LGBTQ community thinks using IVF — which requires male and female components to make a human life — is a solution that justifies their barren relationships.

IVF opens up a brand new tier of moral problems, as it puts unborn children into the position of being sold like slaves and, even worse, killed when they are not implanted.

But even without the hypocrisy, IVF is not a solution to the inability of same-sex couples to have children. Rather, IVF opens up a brand new tier of moral problems, as it puts unborn children into the position of being sold like slaves and, even worse, killed when they are not implanted.

2. Think Of The Children

Second, contrary to popular reports, people raised by same-sex couples are not as well developed as those raised by married parents. Comprehensive research published earlier this year by Catholic University of America researcher Dr. Paul Sullins found that “emotional problems were over twice as prevalent…for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents.”

Sullins’ data are bolstered by personal stories from the International Children’s Rights Institute. Founded by bisexual University of California professor Roberto Oscar Lopez, it promotes “basic rights,” including “a right to a mother and a father, wherever possible” for every child. Earlier this year, Lopez — who is married with three children — and five other people raised by same-sex parents filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court asking it to not change the legal definition of marriage.

Their reason? It’s bad for children.

3. Marriage Is Great For You — And Same-Sex Relationships Aren’t

Third, marriage produces longer life spans, especially for men. In 2011, a survey of 90 studies found that single men die eight to 17 years earlier than married males. Life spans for single women decrease by seven to 15 years compared with their married counterparts.

Conversely, a number of studies have found lower life expectancies for same-sex sexual couples. While the invention of anti-retroviral drugs has narrowed the gap, anal sex between men has led to this small segment of society making up at least two-thirds of all HIV/AIDS cases in America.

Taxpayers have a right to not be held financially accountable for poor life decisions with predictable consequences.

Other illnesses are also more prevalent among the gay and lesbian populations than for the general population. Laura Durso, now Director of the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress, told PolitiFact in 2012 that evidence indicates breast cancer and anal cancer more often affect lesbians and gay men, respectively.

The above observations are important not just for the harm to each person, but also for the integrity of the public dollar. In an era when the cost of government’s role in government is increasing, the Centers for Disease Control encourages monogamy, condoms, and medicine for gay men more than it pushes for abstinence. Likewise, public dollars are used to pay for condoms and anti-retroviral drugs. While these taxpayer-funded Band-aids may do some good and are signs of the tremendous compassion and ingenuity of human beings, they are not real solutions.

Taxpayers have a right to not be held financially accountable for poor life decisions with predictable consequences.

4. Society Is Empowered By Marriage And Weakened By Its Redefinition

Lastly, the families that come from marriage create communities that empower each other. Bonds are formed, friends are made. As has been seen in Europe, Canada, and a number of U.S. states, however, redefining marriage brings persecution, reduction in liberties of speech and religion, and threatens the very fabric of equal treatment under the law.

Bendery, a bright, passionate woman with whom David had a lively dialogue, told the audience they spoke to that redefining — or, let’s be frank, undefining — government’s role in marriage is about equality and fairness. However, it is not the role of government to provide “fairness” in marriage; its goal should be to do what’s best for society.

Alas, based upon the available science, the many benefits of marriage are not transferrable to its redefinition for same-sex couples.

Consider an analogy: Many people think that searching Google makes their opinions about the Supreme Court as valid as an attorney’s or that looking at Wikipedia makes them experts in the medical field. Under this “fairness” doctrine, shouldn’t the government endorse giving just anyone a medical degree and a scalpel or a pilot’s license and an F-16?

Or would that idea of “fairness” cause undue harm to individuals and society writ large?

The same is true for government’s role in marriage. The burden of proof to expand the government’s definition — to “earn” social approval, tax benefits, etc. — of marriage is on same-sex couples. Like anyone who wants to receive a degree or a certificate, same-sex couples must make the case that they add benefits equal to those of marriage.

Alas, based upon the available science, the many benefits of marriage are not transferrable to its redefinition for same-sex couples.

Frankly, We’re Having The Wrong Debate

Despite what the LGBTQ movement claims, the debate over same-sex “marriage” isn’t a debate of equal relationships or civil rights; it has nothing in common with this country’s Civil Rights Era. After all, race is something that is inborn. Dozens of twin studies have found no link between genetics and same-sex sexual attractions.

The public policy debate should focus on whether relationships that reduce health outcomes should be granted special benefits by government.

It’s also not about sexual attraction. Otherwise, practically every male past the age of puberty would earn special government attention walking down the street. Yet heterosexually attracted men do not receive government benefits until they tie the proverbial knot in a relationship proven to dramatically benefit society.

The public policy debate should focus on whether relationships that reduce health outcomes, are bad for children, and do not serve to continue the survival of the human species should be granted special benefits by government.

So how could the LGBTQ community reward society enough to earn a place with married couples, rather than just have it misleadingly granted by judicial activists? By meeting the same standards of excellence of benefits for society as those who are married.