Gay marriage could have far-reaching consequences

Published:

Senator Rob Portman ("Ohio senator: Gay couples also deserve chance to get married," Record-Courier, March 19) is to be commended for his loyalty to family and for his courage to make a difficult decision. He has taken a position on marriage that could risk his political career and he obviously agonized over the issue of redefining marriage. He has not taken this lightly, and that is appreciated.

However, his views, along with many other prominent figures changing their minds, hold the potential of far-reaching consequences for marriage and the social structure of our nation.

Senator Portman embraces a redefinition of marriage that is being aggressively advanced by advocates of same-sex marriage. The result is an emotional union, built on deep feelings, caring and long term commitment, relying wholly on the affective domain.

How does this differ from any other relationships bonded by feelings? How would marriage be different from deep friendships? What distinguishes marriage from intimate discussions and sharing among friends? Marriages based solely on emotional attachments open the door for numerous configurations, posing many dangers to the social structure so foundational to our nation.

Marriage is a conjugal relationship between a man and a woman. It's biological, among other things, and produces children dependent on mothers and fathers committed to providing for and protecting their offspring. They also nurture children to be contributing members of the family and eventually as responsible citizens in society. The biological complementarity of man and woman has been the basis of marriage since people were formed.

There is no question gays have experienced much undue suffering for their orientation. They have been ostracized, humiliated, physically attacked and assaulted. This is shameful in a land where people should be treated with human dignity and respect for conscience.

Yet, it is often because of these atrocities against gays that gestures of sympathetic compensation are advanced, suggesting various entitlements as retribution for their sufferings. Among these is same-sex marriage, which Portman now supports. He may want to reexamine this notion as he fixes an eye on the future. One recommendation is "What is Marriage? Man and Woman: a Defense," by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George. The book thoroughly documents studies showing the consequences of same-sex marriage.

According to Portman, "We (conservatives) also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society ... We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility." Findings by Girgis, Anderson, and George show such commitments have a low probability.

Senator Portman concludes saying, "... As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage."

A more perfect union?

I wish our senator well in his relationship with his children and extended family.

David A. Spencer, Kent

Comments

Signed in as

By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed. The Record Courier doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.

  • Conservative_Bill

    Clearly a child raised by 2 homosexuals has either 2 mothers or 2 fathers, but not a mother and father presence.

  • ChildofGod

    Mr Trawl, your comments are NOT true, and if you truly did your research you would know that. First, there is 0 evidence that Dr. Regnerus is a "militant Christian activist," as you called him. You use a lot of derogatory names instead of facts. His main accuser was a self-identified homosexual activist, Scott Rosensweig (Rose). Although, to your credit, you did find that Regnerus did nothing wrong in his research because after it was published in the peer-reviewed journal Social Science Research in June, 2012 it was the target "of vitriolic attacks" that had no basis in fact. That was the finding of the University of Texas at Austin who hired Robert A. Peterson, retired Director of the Research Integrity Office of the US Dept of Health and Huaman Services, to lead a team to independently review Dr. Regnerus's "New Family Structures Study" in response to Mr. Rosenweig's accusations. They found no evidence to support the allegations against Dr. Regnerus (Aug. 24, 2012), which were similar to your allegations Mr. Trawl. Thereafter, the UT Austin closed the case while stating that "socialigist Dr. Mark Regnerus's study of adults whose parents had same-sex relationships deserves scholarly discussion, not investigation for scientific misconduct." The Regnerus study follows a similar, though smaller, scientific, peer reviewed study in July 2010 (published in Journal of Biosocial Science) by Dr. Walter Schumm of Kansas State University, a professor of Family Studies. He found that children raised in 'gay' lesbian households are up to 12 times more likely to self-identify as gay. He and his team found that "...the data show rather clearly that children raised by gay or lesbian parents on average are at a significant disadvantage when compared to children raised by the intact family of their married, biological mother and father." By the way, true science, not allegations nor assertions, will eventually show that God knows what He is doing.

  • Trawl

    When a Thumper cites "science" I know somethings going on so I looked up the study and found Dr. Mark Regnerus is a militant Christian Activist, so there is that. And the "peer review"? Yeah, Dr. Mark Regneruss peers reviewed this Militants research and while finding Regnerus did nothing wrong in collecting data Regnerus peers have serious problems with Regnerus compiling of that data and Regnerus conclusions.

  • ChildofGod

    Good letter Mr. Spencer. I agree that we need to be concerned about the consequenses of changing our Society's structure, especially the building block, the family. This is especially true when non-scientific "studies" have recently been promoted and the study's author interviews very few gay couples, and then produces a study that favors the gay life style. What about professionalism? What about looking at the issue from various viewpoints? What about making sure that the study topic is Testable, Observable, Measurable, and Repeatable as most of us have learned is necessary for a study to actually be scientific. The first national, and scientific study on this topic was produced last year and can be found at (http://www.scribd.com/doc/96719068/Regnerus-Study) entitled “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study." This is a peer reviewed study with no political agenda. Dr. Mark Regnerus was seeking the truth about the effect on families and individuals when a parent has a same-sex adult relationship while children are still in the home. It's very informative.

  • Chasmo

    The author is correct: actions have consequences. Does this necessarily imply that no action should be taken? Books, articles, and letters were published in the 19th Century that argued against the abolition of slavery. As it turned out, there were indeed serious consequences to freeing the slaves. Does this mean we shouldn't have done it? Likewise, books, articles, and letters were published in the 19th and 20th Centuries that argued that women should not be given the vote. Does this mean we shouldn't have done that? There is certainly room for debate on the subject of gay marriage, but warning against unspecified "potential" consequences, and referring the reader to the polemic-du-jour, does not advance that debate.

  • Trawl

    So if the "biological complementarity" don't or can't reproduce they aren't married? The judgment of a relationship is based on that relationships ability to pump out babies? Interesting.

  • Ian_Maserb

    Portman promised to cut Federal spending. Now he would extend benefits to same-sex spouses. He either needs to get that Martians to pay for that or resign.