On Same-Sex marriage: Changing values for one affects everyone

Why do evangelicals care about how society defines marriage? I often hear or read things like "Expanding the understanding of marriage to embrace homosexuals will have no effect on your marriage. It's just making the definition more inclusive." I beg to differ.

As one of my teachers put it, inclusiveness is simply the transitional form from one orthodoxy to another. It may sound cynical, but it does seem to reflect the reality of history. And it's logically inevitable. No one is simply "inclusive." Everyone is simultaneously "inclusive" and "exclusive." One can not include this without at the same time excluding all that is notthis.

An "inclusive" society can not embrace homosexuality as morally equivalent to heterosexuality without also excluding those who do not regard it as equivalent. Witness how many times people who do little more than quote or publish Bible verses are considered guilty of impermissible "hate speech" -- and how much harsher the treatment can be for those who enthusiastically advocate the historic church teaching.

The pro-Same-Sex marriage position is not simply a move to expand the definition of marriage. It is a move to completely change the root meaning of marriage. The traditional definition -- in quick summary form -- focuses on providing a stable environment for care and nurture, of children especially, but for families generally. The biological case is obvious.

The psychological case is subtle, but also clear. Children grow up best in an environment with strong, positive male and female role models acting in balance. For example, boys who do not grow up seeing a father work and sacrifice for the good of his family will tend to be self-focused themselves. That was the impulse behind Big Brothers and other mentoring projects: if a boy does not have a positive male role model in his own family, then the society should provide him one.

The pro-Same-Sex marriage definition changes the focus of marriage. It moves the focus from the care and nurture of children and families. Marriage becomes focused on defining, regularizing, and regulating the sexual conduct of adults. Children become a secondary issue. The main thing is the emotional and social fulfillment of the adults in question.

How far will this go? For example, if a lesbian couple wants to fulfill their desire to be parents, and especially if one deeply feels a need to be a mother, will they be entitled to costly fertility treatments so they can bear children? I've read reports of these kinds of claims being made on the public health care system. Having embraced their marriage life as a family just like any other, on what basis can society say no? But if we say yes, how do we pay for this care? The health care system is already strained to the breaking point: what further cuts will we make to free these funds?

I tend not to be a individualistic libertarian. When people say "these changes in values will have no effect on you and your values," I do not easily agree. We are all connected to one another by a subtle tapestry of relationships and influences, and should exercise great care before we pull too hard on one loose thread. As the saying goes, All humanity "is of one author, and is one volume; ... [T]he bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come..." No one is an island, separatate and unconnected; we are all part of the mainland, joined, united, connected to one another.