Monday, August 4, 2008

In Defense of Marriage

In Defense of Marriage - Part I


Marriage is far more profound than our contemporary culture would lead us to believe. It is a lifelong commitment that restrains self-centeredness, self-indulgence, and self-gratification. It is the one relationship that effectively prepares and conditions us for living in community with others. By restraining self-centeredness and promoting love of another, marriage then becomes the foundation for social order. When this commitment labeled marriage is reduced to nothing more than a mere contract between two consenting persons, one option among many, or redefined to accommodate any type of participants [or number], it ceases to provide the same societal benefits.

[Note: Click on title link to continue reading.]

In Defense of Marriage - Part II


Attempting to promote monogamy among homosexual couples by rearranging marriage ignores the fact that homosexual acts are patently obvious distortions of the human biological design. We are born biologically male or female and as such we are sexually dissimilar but in complimentary ways. The male/female sexual union works, in other words. This is true of every species on earth. Every living organism has a particular way of reproducing and rearing offspring; its anatomy is biologically designed to support that way. If one believes we are products of an evolutionary process, then homosexual acts are a deviation from the procreative design and homosexuality is therefore a genetic defect because it fails to propagate the species. If one holds to the belief that we are created, then it defies the design and intent of the Creator. Either way homosexuality violates the given design.

In Defense of Marriage - Part III


Now let’s examine the historical findings relative to those cultures that once held to a strong sexual ethic—in which monogamy is strictly reinforced through marriage—but later compromised that ethic, as we are now doing. According to Unwin’s thorough survey of history, any and every culture that embraces a philosophy of sexual freedom for a period of at least three generations will inevitably experience cultural decline (Unwin, Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior, 1935).

There is not one single example in all of human history where this cultural pattern appears and there does not follow cultural demise consistent with Unwin’s conclusions. (I would estimate that we are in the latter stages of the second generation.)

History is replete with examples that testify to this fact. The Greek, Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires are just a few examples of cultures that began with a strong marriage-centered monogamy and later degenerated into liberal sexual practices (including homosexuality), which, according to the sociological and anthropological evidence, was central to their downfall. Of course, our own culture has suffered enormously in the wake of the American sexual revolution; the societal costs of paternal absence, divorce, and out-of-wedlock births have been staggering.

[It] is the height of arrogance, ignorance, or both that argues against the unique nature of marriage and its necessity to social stability and well-being. However, with more than four decades following the American sexual revolution, this should not be surprising because, as Sorokin pointed out, “in the conditions of spiritual, moral, and mental anarchy … it is difficult to maintain sexual sanity” (Sorokin, p. 55).

In Defense of Marriage - Part IV


Abuse within male homosexual relationships is as high as 46 percent (“Domestic Violence in Gay and Lesbian Couples,” Among lesbian couples, some research shows that the lifetime prevalence of physical assault among women living with female partners was 35.4 percent. Given that same-sex “marriage” would exist in name only without its essential defining elements, its application to homosexual couples would, most likely, not serve to arrest the high rates of domestic abuse among gays.

[In] regards to homosexual couples, the concept of fidelity is a popular myth. In the book The Male Couple, the author reports that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, “Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships” (McWhirter, The Male Couple [Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall] 252, 253).

[In]short, marriage and the natural family function as the cornerstone of civilization; even the slightest deviation from this absolute definition destabilizes this vital institution and begins to produce a series of deleterious effects. Do we really believe that redefining marriage in even more radical terms will somehow improve the situation?

HT: Center for Christ and Culture: The teaching ministry of S. Michael Craven


Kevin said...

That article claims: "We are born biologically male or female and as such we are sexually dissimilar but in complimentary ways."
Interesting. That isn't a biblical based fact. Jesus himself says that some are born eunuchs (Matt. 19:12).

"If one believes we are products of an evolutionary process, then homosexual acts are a deviation from the procreative design and homosexuality is therefore a genetic defect because it fails to propagate the species."

Well then. Someone needs to read the passage by Jesus about the eunuchs because although God made them, they seem to be a genetic defect because they fail 'to propagate the species.'

Kevin said...

So this 'defense' mentions a book published in 1935! And the book The Male Couple was published over 20 years ago (1985).

And whoever quoted those statistics have twisted them. Here is what the article says about those numbers:
"On the one hand, these numbers may not be accurate. For example, some research shows that the lifetime prevalence of physical assault among women living with female partners was 35.4%, compared to 20.4% among women living with male partners. However, looking deeper, women living with female partners were almost three times more likely to report having been victimized by a previous male, rather than a female partner (IPARV, 2002). Thus, some sources carelessly misquote research to support their negative views of gays and lesbians, simply to promote their own agenda."

That article ( that the author cited also states (and clearly he did not read this part of it):
"However, others have focused in detail on domestic violence in gay and lesbian couples, citing some higher estimates of gay domestic violence to support a view of gay and lesbian relationships as inherently dysfunctional, and the gay and lesbian community as aware but hiding this from mainstream society."

So is anyone supposed to take this seriously? You imply that this is a defense of marriage. But this article is based on old research that isn't applicable and flat out lies. Hmmm.

Kevin said...

Oh, and Sorokin was writing in 1956. Ugh.

Christinewjc said...

A few quick questions and comments.

1. Isn't a eunuch still considered male?

2. I, personally, don't believe in the macro-evolution theory. Therefore, what the author stated is not really relevant.

However, I presume that he stated that as an example of why those who believe in the molecule to man part of Darwinism should reject homosexual behavior as normal, natural, healthy and scientifically advantageous.

3. For me, God's design (will elaborate later) demonstrates that homosexual sexual practice is not part of His plan for human beings. The family unit (father, mother, children) is triune in nature just as the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is triune in nature. We went into this in detail at our meeting last night. Will share it later.

4. So what if the book referenced was written in 1956? Does the age of the book make it less relevant? In fact, I'm sure that the NARTH website has more recent statistics that show an even higher percentage of domestic violence in homosexual relationships.

There is a Book that is even much older - but timeless in its message, superior in its knowledge and wisdom, and written as the men who penned the various books contained within, were "carried along by the Holy Spirit of God." That book, of course, is the Bible.

5. God made them (us) male and female. That IS a biblically based fact. Will go into more detail later...gotta run!


P.S. Any Christians (including Truth Project readers) - please feel free to join in if you are led to do so!

Kevin said...

Hey Christine,
Yes, a eunuch is male. However, Craven's article is that God created male and female to procreate. A eunuch, which God created, cannot do that. Therefore according to Craven's logic, God's own plan is a deviation.

I would be interested in hearing about how the mother, father, and children is related to the God, Son and Holy Spirit. From what I understand, God has no consort.

And yes, the age of the book certainly does matter. Craven is using out of date books that no one can take seriously when you are arguing for something today. He uses a book written over 70 years ago to talk about the Greek, Roman and Sumerian civilization. So much has happened in terms of research in this area that I would be hesitant to use a book over 20 years old.
And when it comes to social statistics, an author should use the most up-to-date information available. Otherwise it looks like 1) he/she is picking and choosing what fits or 2) he/she doesn't know what they are talking about.

I'm not sure why you would think NARTH would have statistics showing an even higher # of domestic abuse cases. I've written a long post on the problems with the Craven article at my own blog. Needless to say, bad sources lead to bad articles. And this one is particularly bad.

Wayne from Jeremiah Films said...

I'm not going to debate if marriage is between a man and a woman in the bible; clearly it is, over and over again.

I will add however that if you go to the ends of the earth where nobody has heard of McDonald's or Cola, or Jesus. They understand the concept of a marriage being between a man and a woman.

Roman 2:15 - They show that what the law requires is written in their hearts, a fact to which their own consciences testify, and their thoughts will either accuse or excuse them.

Christinewjc said...


When you return, please see this post for details I had left out of my previous comment here.

Christinewjc said...

Really good points, Wayne. The gay christian movement is all about excusing sinful, same-sex behavior. As was pointed out by Romans 2:15, either one is accused of one's sin - or - one does all that he or she can to excuse one's own sin. That is precisely what is going on in this, as well as many other heretical and worldly elements raging against true Biblical Christianity in our world today.

The "do not judge" mantra being elevated by homosexuals who want to be Christians while willfully continuing in sinful sexual behavior may indicate that they have not truly repented and are still under the judgment of God.

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (KJV)

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
I'm back from a nice trip.
I've read your article. My only addition to your list would be:

20. Sexchanging the truth for a lie = divorce

beckrl said...

Marriage is under attack, in many ways,Same sex, and in my church an acceptation of adultery in the since that if you ask for forgiveness you don't have to forsake that sin in which you asked forgiveness. It a man's way of covering his sin.
We must" in the defense of marriage" speak the truth.