Search
Close this search box.

Defining Marriage, Part III: How to Reply to “Love Is Love”

This is a four-part series on Defining Marriage, a new booklet from FPIW. 
Here is the series: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV.

“Love is love.” In modern culture, it is not uncommon to hear that phrase as an argument to justify allowing same-sex individuals to be married. Many on the Left believe it is unjust discrimination to deny same-sex individuals a fundamental right of marriage if both people love each other and consent to the union. If you were confronted with this line of reasoning, what would be your response?

We offer two responses to this argument:

  1. If love and consent are the only criteria for marriage, why not have more than two people marry — say, three or four members of the same sex? What logical reason stops your number at two people? Why discriminate against bisexuals or polygamists? In reality, these “more-than-two” ideas are favored in the statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” (2006). Some 300 people signed it — including Gloria Steinem, Princeton University’s Cornel West, and hundreds of other elites. The statement calls for the legal recognition of polyamorous households “in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” 
  2. Or, if you want to limit marriage to any two people, why discriminate against a father marrying his daughter, or a mother marrying her son? If they both love each other and both consent, on what logical grounds would you deny them marriage?

From here we see that same-sex marriages open a gateway to unchecked perversion, and destroys the foundational standard that marriage is between one man and one woman, a principle rooted in human nature — i.e., the human design and what is best for human flourishing according to Nature, or God as the Creator. Such a design has been embraced by nearly all cultures and all major religions throughout world history. “Until very recent history, homosexual unions have never officially been considered a normal, morally equal part of any culture,” writes Dr. Bill Maier, PsyD in his essay “Same-Sex Marriage” in The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality.

The Left has shown no hesitation in opening the floodgates to the LGBT agenda, and look at what has happened to this nation since: children are transitioning their genders at school behind their parents’ backs, boys are assaulting girls in female bathrooms, adults are grooming children under the guise of “drag,” and men are stealing accomplishments from female athletes at every turn. Justifying same-sex marriage is a slippery slope, and it has led us directly to where we are now.

One critic of the Family Policy Institute of Washington’s new booklet Defining Marriage: Why Only One Man and One Woman? wrote: “Marriage is two people in a loving committed relationship. Gender is irrelevant. Love wins.” 

But we know that gender is far more than external, surface body parts. Rather than being “irrelevant,” gender has a profound and deep impact upon our identity. Both common sense and social science supply overwhelming evidence about such basic biological proclivities hardwired and built into men and women. For the biological data, see, for example, Ashley McGuire’s book Sex Scandal: The Drive to Abolish Male and Female (2017); or for a summary of research studies on the brain scans of men and women, see the essay from Stanford University called “Two Minds: The Cognitive Differences Between Men and Women” (Stanford Medicine, Spring 2017).

Historically, cultures have embraced the complementary view: men and women are designed by nature differently with certain proclivities, but are absolutely equal in value. (A difference in design does not mean a difference in value.) Like a dance, men need women, women need men. On this complementary view that life and maturity can come by marriage, the point is not to establish strict, rigid roles or ironclad models.

The point is to acknowledge and celebrate: 

  • Certain general tendencies or trends among men and women; 
  • Some beautiful and unique gifts that men and woman have; and 
  • How they can use these gifts to build a marriage and help heal and encourage one another toward maturity and holiness. 

Such a complementary view, then, rejects: 

  • Masculine chauvinism: “Men are always superior.”
  • Female chauvinism: “Women are always superior.”
  • Bland egalitarianism: “There are no major differences between men and women.”

It is true that each person’s behavior is not determined by gender, but gender is a deep and strong influence. Within the confines of marriage, gender is far from irrelevant for a functioning and healthy relationship. Biologically determined gender roles play a significant part in the day to day life of families, and you’ll find the happiest couples are those that fully recognize and embrace the significance of their predisposed roles as mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, and even daughters and sons.

This article is an excerpt from the free booklet Defining Marriage: Why Only One Man and One Woman? 

Additional Resources

Books

Essays & Articles

Videos

Read More