Why I Didn't Support Legal Gay 'Marriage' - Without Reference to God

I have a friend who is both gay and atheist. 

Yes - we have a lot to talk about.

He challenged me to give a reason - without invoking God - why I wouldn't support legal, gay 'marriage'. I thought I'd give it a try. 

Homo-sex is not new. It's been practiced for millennia. But referring to same-sex couples as  legally 'married' is new. Why?

I suppose we should first ask ourselves a question. Why does the State grant legal benefits and recognition to any romantic or sexual relationship in the first place? Why have a legal category called 'marriage'? What business is it of the State to legislate what I do in my bedroom? Why not treat marriage like a social trend like line-dancing, yoga or veganism and just let the citizens get on with it?

Historically the State has promoted man-woman marriage as an institution for these reasons:
  1. One Man-One Woman marriage civilises men. At some point in human history, the State realised that married men don’t run around in gangs. When they have a wife and baby to care for, they stop being thugs and go out to work (benefiting society) so they can feed their family. Being married reduces the chances of a man ending up in prison. When a man has a woman depending on him to protect and provide for, there is a general tendency for him to be a more productive citizen of the State. Man-Woman marriage has historically reduced crime.
  2. One Man – One Woman marriage has historically afforded woman greater protection. If I’m the State and I see a trend in which individual men are pledging their whole lives to care for a woman and her children, then I (as the State) don’t need to worry about protecting that woman and baby. Her husband does that. A woman – during pregnancy and her nursing years – has historically been vulnerable. A man who has made a public vow to stay by her side during hard times to provide and protect is what a woman - during that period - has historically needed most.
  3. Man-Woman Marriage makes more citizens. We may remove Father God from the equation, but it’s not so easy to do the same to Mother Nature. It is biology - not bigotry – that insists it takes a man and woman to make a baby. The State knows this. The State took biology in high-school. It knows what a penis and vagina can do in tandem. (Yes, a baby can be born to a single woman - but it is not ideal and the State usually needs to pay for it when that happens)
  4.  Not only is the Man-Woman relationship biologically necessary to produce a new citizen, but having both a father and a mother is ideal for any young citizen to grow. I do not doubt that if two homosexual men adopt a baby girl that they can potentially love and provide for her. They cannot, however, be a mother to her. They cannot mentor her into womanhood: give tips on dealing with menstruation, makeup tips, how to handle yourself around boys, etc. Likewise, a son who grows up without a male father present is seven times more likely to end up in prison. The State has long since known that there are some things fathers tend to give a child and other things a mother tends to give a child and these are not fully interchangeable.
Yes, culturally we do see things differently than the Greeks or Romans. Rightly or wrongly we have differing views to what degree pregnant women need 'protecting'. But the point from history remains: the only reason the State would ever and should ever create a legal category for a social phenomenon is if it is of benefit to itself. The Greeks and Romans widely practiced homosexuality for personal fulfilment, but they only ever made Man-Woman committed sexual relationships a legal category because the State benefited from them. Polyamory and same-sex couples do not do the above four things as well or at all.

The State doesn’t care who you’re in love with. The State doesn’t care who you have sex with or habitat with. Friends can make social vows to each other (see here for more). But the State only got involved and made laws promoting Man-Woman marriage because it saves the State a helluva lot of work and money. 

Sure, the State doesn’t need to prohibit same-sex couples. But what interest does it have in promoting them? There is no compelling reason the States should create a legal category for a sexual relationship between two (or more) people of the same gender. There never has been.

bkFor more, check out our book Forbidden Friendships available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the USA and the UK


  1. Brilliant! The bigotry and added insult of the western countries is when they are now bold to promote, enforce or even bully other countries into adapting a lifestyle that the general population regardless of religious leaning refuse to accommodate. 'And they caked this modern'? Weird

  2. Very well written Joshua. Sensible and well researched. I especially like points 3 and 4. Point 4 makes so much sense. Hope this article goes far and generates wise and calm conversations.

  3. Can you cite sources for your statistics please

    1. The statistic I think you're refering to is from the book, 'The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce'.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts